Are they? I've heard people accusing the duskblade class of being a little too strong. I haven't been able to read up on them myself. So what's the deal with them?
Are they? I've heard people accusing the duskblade class of being a little too strong. I haven't been able to read up on them myself. So what's the deal with them?
I played a 1st level warforged duskblade once in a one-shot. It was me (by myself, the rest of the party was asleep because it was the middle of the night) versus something like 9 warriors and a couple of guys with class levels (fighters, I suspect, or rogues). In any case I hit them with color spray dropping about 5 or 6 of them, and then held the rest off dropping another 2 or 3 with slam attacks until the rest of the party showed up. I can't think of another class that could do that at first level without being able to heal itself.
And keep in mind this is before I got the class features that allow me to deliver touch spells through my weapon (and later, full attack and have the spell affect every strike as though it were a separate casting- think vampiric touch) and get a bonus to penetrate SR when I deal melee damage, and get to wear up to medium armor and any shield with no spell failure chance, and cast spells as a swift action....
I can't think of another class that could do that at first level without being able to heal itself.
Sure, but every class has its niche. Look at duskblades as compared to bards or rangers. In both cases, the classes resemble each other strongly, but there are some trade offs both ways.
I personally find the duskblade uninteresting, because it's an entirely martial class with a +2 circumstance bonus to sitting on the sidelines and twiddling its thumbs during noncombat encounters. Their spell selection isn't good for much other than killing things and their skills are nothing to write home about. Not to say that they're a bad class. They certainly have their advantages, but I'd caution someone about playing one in a game I was running because they're going to be limelight impaired during plots that center on negotiation, investigation, and other themes I devote the occassional gaming session to.
It's actually a cheering thing to see that people are questioning balance with the new classes in the game, as Noonan said in his Reads Bad, Plays Good column about the mystic theurge. However, the internet is a big place and for every class, there's someone out there who thinks its a cheeseball. Take such conversations with a grain of salt.
Are they? I've heard people accusing the duskblade class of being a little too strong. I haven't been able to read up on them myself. So what's the deal with them?I played a 1st level warforged duskblade once in a one-shot. It was me (by myself, the rest of the party was asleep because it was the middle of the night) versus something like 9 warriors and a couple of guys with class levels (fighters, I suspect, or rogues). In any case I hit them with color spray dropping about 5 or 6 of them, and then held the rest off dropping another 2 or 3 with slam attacks until the rest of the party showed up. I can't think of another class that could do that at first level without being able to heal itself.
And keep in mind this is before I got the class features that allow me to deliver touch spells through my weapon (and later, full attack and have the spell affect every strike as though it were a separate casting- think vampiric touch) and get a bonus to penetrate SR when I deal melee damage, and get to wear up to medium armor and any shield with no spell failure chance, and cast spells as a swift action....
Padan Slade? Marcus? :-P This is Jay. I was actually asking this question to get a second opinion to weigh against your original opinion. :-D I'm surprised you didn't recognize my SN.
lol, yes, Jay, I know that's you. When'd you get an account?
baudot- I think specifically what we're referring to here is combat effectiveness when we're asking if a class is overpowered. I can't think of any ways to be unbalanced in an RP situation (unless you want to get into the 2nd level bard with a +17 to Diplomacy, but that's a separate rant entirely). In combat effectiveness the duskblade outshines most (if not all) classes IMO. Compared to bard- bards have better skills and more utilitarian spells, as well as good party buffs, but they aren't as good in melee and they don't have many direct damage spells, or as high a hit die. Rangers are as good in melee as a duskblade and have an equivalent hit die, but their spell selection is pretty meh (again, IMO) and they don't get any class features as ridiculous as full attacking with spells.
That said, I wouldn't play one in an RP-heavy game either.
|
I played a 1st level warforged duskblade once in a one-shot. It was me (by myself, the rest of the party was asleep because it was the middle of the night) versus something like 9 warriors and a couple of guys with class levels (fighters, I suspect, or rogues). In any case I hit them with color spray dropping about 5 or 6 of them, and then held the rest off dropping another 2 or 3 with slam attacks until the rest of the party showed up. I can't think of another class that could do that at first level without being able to heal itself.
...
Oh yeah, you should try the Whisper Gnome Ninja! With a couple high-rolled abilities, he's untouchable and often ends up telling the party's main melee character "thanks for trying".
The ranger and the duskblade are very comperable. The duskblade straight up better at attack spells, getting full levels rather than half levels for caster level value, and starting with spells from first level. Meanwhile, the ranger is getting Favored Enemies, a boaload of feats, far more skill points, and a wider variety of spell types.
i agree with baudot, the duskblade is limited to damage only. All his abilities and spells are designed to make damage, outside fight he's useless.
This class is not overpowered, it's a balanced class designed for players willing to do damage via spells or blades.
The good thing with this class is it's self-sufficent. you don't need to take levels in a PRC to be efficient (at least, not until you're 13th).
Hmm... so what's PRC? is it the same as PrC? what does it stand for?
Same as PrC... a Prestige Class.
Check out the "figher mages?" post under general discussion, there are 44 post and quite a good deal with the duskblade vs eldritch knight and other spell casting fighters.
|
Are they? I've heard people accusing the duskblade class of being a little too strong. I haven't been able to read up on them myself. So what's the deal with them?
I think that they aren't that broken. I mean the BAB is nice and so are the saves and D8 HD. But I think that they are decent. As far as their choice of spells is, I think that they are boned unless you just want a general assault spell choice. In that case they are good.
If any of you want a fighter mage than may I suggest to check out the alternative class feature for the fighter from the Complete Mage? It allows you to pick one spell casting class and lose both medium armor and heavy armor profeciency for the ability to cast any spell you know from that one spell casting class through light armor with no arcane spell failure. You then just take practiced spellcaster and then a level of psychic warrior to gain your armor profeciencys back and then take straight fighter and wizard levels and take battlecaster twice to cast through full plate and you will be good. It will also give you a better selection of spells. But you advance in spell levels slower that is the only catch.
OK, yeah, once again, when I talk about the class being too strong, I am talking about combat effectiveness, i.e. how many faces get melted once initiative is rolled. It's here that I think the duskblade is unnecessarily powerful. Without having to twink it at all and without taking any feats into consideration, at high levels you can easily be churning out 150-200 damage each round with a full attack, get half of that back as temporary hp if you're using vampiric touch, and then cast another spell the same round using quick cast. This doesn't require taking multiple classes or prestige classes or anything, they can just do that right out of the box.
Admittedly I haven't played ranger so I'm not totally sure about how they compare, but I've always thought ranger was only really effective (again, in combat) if you knew what you were going to be fighting and could plan your favored enemy choices accordingly. I could easily be wrong.
And I agree fully with everyone who said that they're nearly useless out of battle- they don't have many utility spells and their skills are terrible. I would never play one in an intrigue-based game or any other game that is very RP-oriented. This is a class that does one thing- deals damage in mass quantities- and does it much better than any other core class I've ever played, which is why I think they're unbalanced and don't allow them in games I run.
That said, because it's a one-shot and I'm a hypocrite, I'm going to be playing a 22nd-level duskblade in a dungeon crawl tonight. I'll let you know of the results. :-)
That said, because it's a one-shot and I'm a hypocrite, I'm going to be playing a 22nd-level duskblade in a dungeon crawl tonight. I'll let you know of the results. :-)
/shudder
That said, because it's a one-shot and I'm a hypocrite, I'm going to be playing a 22nd-level duskblade in a dungeon crawl tonight. I'll let you know of the results. :-)
I'm quite curious to see how that goes. One other weakness I'd expect from the Duskblade in practice would be running out of steam, given their reduced number of castings compared to a true mage and the fact that many of their class abilities work with their spells.
Granted, by 22nd level it will have to be a pretty serious dungeon crawl before you run out of spells...
I have not played one so I can't say anything difinitivly but looking over the class it strikes me as pretty balanced. I mean its a front line fighter that can cast some number of spells using quick cast per day. But the number of times the Duskblade can use quick cast is pretty limited. Outside of this limited number of quick casts the Duskblade has a problem. Front line fighters do not normally have a lot of opportunity to stop fighting so they can cast buff spells. The standard issue fighter has feats piled on feats and most of these are, more or less, always active. The Duskblade is short on feats (always trouble for frontline fighter types) and faces the problem of being at cross purposes every round on whether it should be casting a spell or swinging a sword.
Like all duel fighter/spell user classes there is also the problem of a lack of a dump stats. It has to be good in so many abilities that in most cases its not great at very many - and lets face it, if Duskblade is a viable option in the kind of campaign your playing then its got to be combat heavy and everyone is minmaxing their stats to a greater or lesser degree. Duskblade needs too many stats to really effective at the minmaxing game.
Spell selection is awful - its total spell list is maybe 30 spells and almost all of them are combat orientated. Thats not a terrible problem but even in combat a mage often uses a non-combat spell. Sometimes the wall just needs to be melted or some one has to be teleported to the top of the pillar or a bad guy can't be harmed and therefore must be charmed or imobalized. Whatever the circustance happens to be dealing hp damage is just not the answer in a lot of even combat heavy campaigns. The DM is seraching for ways to make the battles interesting after all and there are only so many times one can trash Orcs before its old hat. The Duskblade is lousy at dealing with the combat curve ball basically.
As a frontline fighter its weak in a number of areas - it lacks hps and probably can't afford to have a huge Dextarity of Constitution so Armour Class and hps suffer. Thats a big point against it when the Dragon goes through its claw/claw/bite/wing buffet/wing buffet/tailslap routine or when the Troll hits with both claws and rends.
The Duskbklade would seem to nominally fill the front line fighter role but its basically a failure in that role - the frontline fighters job description is "stand in front and get beat on by the absolute worst teh DM can dish out". Duskblade generally does not have the hps to take that role.
Now I think if you have 5 players (or more) the Duskblade becomes increasingly viable - it can then not be the frontline fighter but insetad be a support character. Some one can cover for it while it lays on the buff spells and once a Duskblade has got its spells going its going to be a brutal killing machine, for that particular encounter - hence Duskblades excel when played by patient players willing to save their power for the really big fights but I doubt its better then a fighter when the whole, combat orientated, adventure is taken into account. feats are 'spells' that keep on giving while mages have nearly endless spells at higher levels and can afford to cast one every round. The Duskblade does not have the feats and it does not have enough spells to use them except when the situation is important.
A lot of the time its just an underpowered fighter and thats a weakness in combat heavy campaigns. You have to kill the weak minions before you get to the strong minions and they in turn must die before you get to the 2nd in command and he has to die before you meet the boss. In all those early encounters where the party was using a Duskblade instead of a fighter the party as a whole had to use more resources because without feats to do Great Cleave (or whatever the fighters schtick is) those lower end encounters where harder. hey took more rounds to resolve then they would have if a Barbarian with 20 strength had been on hand with power attack and the ability to do 25 points of damage a round without using up a valuable rage.
Another point I thought of when thinking about our combat heavy campaign (since Duskblades are only good in combat heavy campaigns). In such a campaign the frontline fighter player does something like take a Barbarian level, then 2 levels of Psychic Warrior (your here for the feats but the PSPs will be usefull at lower levels - that force field and a power to make you run even faster are going to be useful). Then a couple of levels of fighter (yum yum - more feats) and then back to the Barbarian for the rest of the campaign.
Duskblades are heavily penalized in this regard. Spell Casters, as a rule, should not multi-class because it hurts their spell progression and they become underpowered spell wise for encounters of their CR. The Duskblade is a spell caster - if it multiclasses for 4 levels its going to be crippled in the spell casting department.
Alright, so the game went off as planned last night- except instead of dungeon crawl, our DM secretly meant "I bought the Gargantuan Black Dragon mini and now you will fight it for my pleasure." It was me, a fighter of 22nd level, a swashbuckler, and a soulknife/soulbow.
The fight opened with the party heading up toward the dragon using ranged attacks, doing some decent damage, and I tossed a disintegrate which it made the save for easily, then cast resist acid as a swift action. The dragon moved up and hit a couple of people with its breath weapon, doing some minor damage. Second round brought more ranged full attacks and a chain lightning from me (again, it made the save easily), and then I used dimension door as a swift action to get in its face. It moved up and cast darkness, which I counterspelled (with a ring of spell-battle). 3rd round it got charged by the fighter and took more ranged attacks from everyone else- by this point it had taken about 350-400 damage from everyone put together (I forget the exact number). I got my full attack off wielding a +5 flaming magebane scythe and channeling vampiric touch- critted on the first attack, hit normally on the second attack, missed the third and fourth attacks, and hit on the fifth (hasted due to a magic item). All told I did about 200 damage and got 45 temporary hp back. It full attacked me dropping me to about half HP. The next couple of attacks, including a crit from the swashbuckler, dropped it.
In summary: do not let duskblades full attack you. It ends badly. I did about a 3rd of the total damage it took in one round, without using my swift cast to throw in another spell after the full attack, and without doing anything really twinked like using a spell storing weapon with another vampiric touch in it, or using my Sudden Maximize feat. Now, had the dragon chose to fly instead of remain on the ground, the results would definitely have been different, but I used hardly any of my spells for the day so there were plenty of disintegrates, chain lightnings, polar rays, etc. for me to keep up with the ranged boys had it done so. The DM decided he wasn't allowing duskblades in his games anymore. :-)
i feel i have to weigh in here about the duskblade over powered argument because it just isn't true at all. there's a PC duskblade in my campaign right now who is 8th level and he is a good support character. what i'm hearing here on the part of DMs is a lack of imagination when it comes to this class. you need to give it time, see how it works, over an extended period of time in game to see if it is unbalanced. so far, after close to 10 sessions, this character hasn't been all that great compared to the other pcs. these include a paladin, a cleaver fighter, a swashbuckler, a druid/mage, and a strait up cleric with healing and protection domains. I've seen the fighter do more damage than the duskblade, the spellcasters do more damage with spells and buffs, and the paladin with more battlefield expertise than the duskblade. in fact, at one point the player thought the class was underpowered and didn't have anything to do outside of combat. he sucks at diplomacy, can't search or spot, and seems bored when it actually comes to role play. granted, i run perhaps 1 or 2 combats a session, sometimes none. when we are in combat, the PC is a good second line fighter and that's how it should be. also, by itself it may look overpowered, but you have to understand. this is a class that is used with a party. don't look at it in an individual light. as part of a team he's good. by itself it sucks.
In the old days, Gygax used to write lots of references to "skilled players and DMs," seemingly in every other article that fell from his pen. At the time, I really wondered what a "skilled player" was. I even used to wish there were classes I could take to become the best.
Nowadays, the d20 system highlights perfectly exactly what Mr. Gygax was talking about. Any - and yes, I mean any - class in the d20 system can outshine any other class if the player is truly skilled. In other words, if a player (or DM) takes the time to plan strategies that capitalize on a character's strengths, avoids situations that highlight a character's weaknesses, and recruits effective allies and cohorts, the character can't be beaten. For example, I've seen a single 3rd-level bard defeat a higher-level evil warlord and all his minions in this way. And no, the DM wasn't being a pushover. Similarly, I've seen a high-level fighter taken out by a couple of low-level fighters because he didn't have enough sense to protect himself properly.
It's all in the way you play the game, folks. Play well and win, or play poorly and lose. The more thought you give it, the longer you live.
Are they? I've heard people accusing the duskblade class of being a little too strong. I haven't been able to read up on them myself. So what's the deal with them?
Duskblades are broken and a power-gamer's dream for a fighter-wizard.
A first level Duskblade has full BAB, good will and fort saves, martial weapon profiency, heavy armor and shield profiency, can cast more spells than a 1st level wizard, has a better skill list than a fighter, and receives numerous special abilities that are better than any feats that are available. They only have a d8 for hit points instead of the fighter's d10, but that is their only drawback.
In non-combat situations, their spell-list is not relevant, but likewise, fighters are not relevant in non-combat situations, so this is not really a limitation compared to fighters.
|
Duskblades are broken and a power-gamer's dream for a fighter-wizard.
A first level Duskblade has full BAB, good will and fort saves, martial weapon profiency, heavy armor and shield profiency, can cast more spells than a 1st level wizard, has a better skill list than a fighter, and receives numerous special abilities that are better than any feats that are available. They only have a d8 for hit points instead of the fighter's d10, but that is their only drawback.
Wrong. A first level Duskblade may be proficient in Heavy armor but the Spell failure from it is in effect. No one at first level would wear anything to reduce their ability to cast. They can only wear light armor at first level without Arcane Failure Chance. They lose all the fighter bonus feats, which if you add all the focuses and extra damage feats together and apply that to every attack a fighter makes, you will see that although a Duskblade CAN hit for more damage than a fighter, he can't do it every round and it evens out the total damage dealt over a length of time.
Knee-jerk reactions can give a good class a bad name. Play one. They are great at what they do but no more broken than a Cleric, which is not at all.
FH
...They only have a d8 for hit points instead of the fighter's d10, but that is their only drawback.
They also can't use their armor proficiency beyond light without incurring spell failure chance, can't use their shield proficiency and keep a hand free to cast with, and have to think twice before wielding two handed weapons for the same reason.
Saying they get more spells than a wizard is obfuscatory - they follow a spell progression closer to a sorcerer, with limited spells known. Your first level duskblade only has two spells to choose from, and his choices are only useful at times when they could be smacking somebody with a sword instead. The duskblade doesn't even get the big boom spells. His attack spells are all damage/debuff blends, and the remainder of his spell choices are mostly vanilla buffs. Self-buffing is a big consumer of time, especially in a level 1 combat where hit points are so low.
If duskblades were any less powerful, bards would walk all over them.
|
I'm currently running the G series with an oversized group that includes a duskblade NPC. (Modified from the original fighter/wizard prisoner in G1.)
So far, the only real problem has been one specific spell, not the duskblade itself. Wearing heavy armor and having fighter BAB is fine. The spellcasting ability is made up for by the lack of fighter bonus feats.
As for the spell, it is regroup. With his AC and HP, a duskblade can easily afford to suck up some AoOs to charge in then unleash a quickened regroup to pull the dwarven tanks into full attack melee range. That is a truly brutal combo.
Check out the "figher mages?" post under general discussion, there are 44 post and quite a good deal with the duskblade vs eldritch knight and other spell casting fighters.
Yep. This whole thread is one big Deja-Vu.
I am not going to take the time to look over all the messages but the Duskblade may seem slightly over powered with the ability to do 7d6 damage in a single round at level 2 or 3 (whatever level they get the ability channel a spell in their sword).
Round 1 True Strike, Round 2 Swift Blade of Blood (5 damage for 3d6 damage) on greatsword, shocking grasp, power attack at max base attack bonus (2 but with a two-handed sword its 4). 7d6+10. Of course the Duskblade is almost completely spelled out at that point with three first level spells chained together.
Said player though got bored of the Duskblades limited focus, so I am kinda happy.
I'm having a memory lapse, here. Which book features the Duskblade class?
Players Handbook II.
I am not going to take the time to look over all the messages but the Duskblade may seem slightly over powered with the ability to do 7d6 damage in a single round at level 2 or 3 (whatever level they get the ability channel a spell in their sword).
Round 1 True Strike, Round 2 Swift Blade of Blood (5 damage for 3d6 damage) on greatsword, shocking grasp, power attack at max base attack bonus (2 but with a two-handed sword its 4). 7d6+10. Of course the Duskblade is almost completely spelled out at that point with three first level spells chained together.
Said player though got bored of the Duskblades limited focus, so I am kinda happy.
7d6+10 for that ONE attack. Meanwhile, the raging Barbarian with Power Attack and Cleave is doing 2d6+12 (with an extra attack everytime he drops a foe) and the flanking (or Improved Feinting) Rogue is doing Sneak Attack damage with with EVERY attack. The Sorcerers and Wizards are blasting away with ranged touch or area attacks, summoning with Augmented Summoning, or taking multiple opponents out of the fight at once.
Duskblades can be powerful for one (or two) encounter(s), but are very limited in when can have a big impact. Basically, they are a "one-shot" class, they can have a couple really great attacks per day, but other than that they're mediocre fighters and mediocre spellcasters with no other abilities.
I'd say the example Padan Slade used was more about being a warforged than being a duskblade. A warforged Battle Sorcerer (UA variant) probably could have done the same AND have had a better spell selection/progression. And watch out when the Battle Sorcerer takes the Arcane Strike feat (CW)...
i agree with baudot, the duskblade is limited to damage only. All his abilities and spells are designed to make damage, outside fight he's useless.
This class is not overpowered, it's a balanced class designed for players willing to do damage via spells or blades.
The character is certainly not useless.... that all depends on the player and the choice of skills and spells as to the useability outside of combat. They have access to detect magic for one, granted it';s not a lot but it's how the class is outfitted that matters. In the wrong (Or right as the case may be :p)hands, I believe the class can be overpowered. In combat, any second level character that can have an attack that almost automaticly hits barring a natural 1 (Truestrike) and deal around 30 points of dmg (Blade of Blood) and essentialy puts a barbarian to shame.... just a wee bit overpowred... but hey.,.. that's just me :)
The character is certainly not useless.... that all depends on the player and the choice of skills and spells as to the useability outside of combat. They have access to detect magic for one, granted it';s not a lot but it's how the class is outfitted that matters. In the wrong (Or right as the case may be :p)hands, I believe the class can be overpowered. In combat, any second level character that can have an attack that almost automaticly hits barring a natural 1 (Truestrike) and deal around 30 points of dmg (Blade of Blood) and essentialy puts a barbarian to shame.... just a wee bit overpowred... but hey.,.. that's just me :)
Remember, though, that a second-level Duskblade cannot quick cast and so in order to do what you've said, he must use two rounds to do it which effectively halves the damage. In addition, doing the 3d6 extra damage with Blade of Blood requires a sacrifice of 5 hp and at that level it's verrrrrry risky. Also, Blade 'o Blood is a wizard spell too so, while the wiz may not have a Duskblade's strength or weapon selection, he can pull off the same combo at 2nd level. And he could have shield and mage armor up too for an AC bonus about twice the Duskblade's.
|
|
The character is certainly not useless.... that all depends on the player and the choice of skills and spells as to the useability outside of combat. They have access to detect magic for one, granted it';s not a lot but it's how the class is outfitted that matters. In the wrong (Or right as the case may be :p)hands, I believe the class can be overpowered. In combat, any second level character that can have an attack that almost automaticly hits barring a natural 1 (Truestrike) and deal around 30 points of dmg (Blade of Blood) and essentialy puts a barbarian to shame.... just a wee bit overpowred... but hey.,.. that's just me :)Remember, though, that a second-level Duskblade cannot quick cast and so in order to do what you've said, he must use two rounds to do it which effectively halves the damage. In addition, doing the 3d6 extra damage with Blade of Blood requires a sacrifice of 5 hp and at that level it's verrrrrry risky. Also, Blade 'o Blood is a wizard spell too so, while the wiz may not have a Duskblade's strength or weapon selection, he can pull off the same combo at 2nd level. And he could have shield and mage armor up too for an AC bonus about twice the Duskblade's.
And that is 1 shot. Duskblade can't do that on any kind of a consistant basis. Also 30 points is a bit of a stretch, the average of 3d6 + say 1d10 for a bastard sword (keep that hand somewhat free) is only 16ish damage on average without the +2or3 from strength bonus.....1 time in a combat. A barbarian raging with a greatsword is 2d6 damage + 1-1/2 strength mod(around +6) or 13 average damage potential every round of combat, not figuring in any feats or anything like that for either.
Hardly overpowered. At this level the Sleep spell or color spray would be overpowered by that reasoning because a mage could potentially take out a whole room full of enemies.FH
|
|
Also, according to the daily "Ask Sage" on the Wizard's D&D home page, the Duskblade must keep a hand free for any spells involving somatic components, even while using arcane channeling, which seems to come to two outcomes:
1. Arcane channeling prevents the use of two-handed weapons or "sword & board" fighting because the "casting hand" must be free at the moment the attack is made. "Unheld" weapons, like unarmed strikes or gauntlets would permit shield use.
2. Arcane channeling requires that a hand be free for the spell, but free actions to adjust one's equipment, like holding a two-handed weapon in one hand or holding a weapon in a hand girded by a light shield or buckler, can be used to first cast a spell and then re-arm oneself with the aforementioned weapon.
The Sage admitted this was a strict interpretation of the rules, but it does raise the interesting notion that duskblades might avoid using heavy shields and two-handed weapons if they wish to use arcane channeling.
Thoughts?
At this level the Sleep spell or color spray would be overpowered by that reasoning because a mage could potentially take out a whole room full of enemies.
FH
True that. Sleep and Color Spray are the level 1 Beguiler's best weapons in combat. Won myself almost three rounds of mook-free action to focus on the big nasty with one shot of sleep, and removed the poor hiding orc from the fight with Color Spray before he even knew he'd been spotted.
I'm interested in seeing how the duskblade plays out in actual play. Despite my best attempts at coercement, cajoling, and bribery, none of my current players have seen fit to play a duskblade in my Savage Tide campaign. I'm stuck waiting (and praying) that the PHBII classes will be allowed in Living Greyhawk in the LGCS for CY597.
I like the fact that the class's spell list is focused on damage or combat controlling spells, it fits the fluff of the class. Duskblades began as "elite guardians in an ancient elven empire", so it stands to reason that their spells are focused toward a combat role.
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack.
As far as the limitations of Arcane Channeling, I would rule that if the spell had a somatic component, it could not be cast and delivered if the character were wielding a two-handed weapon. If the wording of the ability were different, I would allow it through the use of free actions to free a hand to cast the spell and then put it back on the weapon.
However, as the casting and delivery of the melee attack are all part of one standard action, there is no time between the casting of the spell and making the attack to use a free action to put the hand back on the weapon. I picture this ability as a duskblade casting his spell with one hand and chanting, while swinging his weapon, delivering the charge with the blow at the same time the spell finishes casting.
On the other hand, removing a hand from a two handed weapon, using the Quick cast power to quick cast and deliver a touch spell, and then placing that hand back on the weapon to make a full attack with the two-handed weapon seems completely legit. This is balanced by the fact that the duskblade can only use this ability a very limited number of times a day.
|
|
On the other hand, removing a hand from a two handed weapon, using the Quick cast power to quick cast and deliver a touch spell, and then placing that hand back on the weapon to make a full attack with the two-handed weapon seems completely legit. This is balanced by the fact that the duskblade can only use this ability a very limited number of times a day.
Also using the Quick cast is the ONLY way to get a full attack with your touch spell channeled on the same round.
On the other hand, removing a hand from a two handed weapon, using the Quick cast power to quick cast and deliver a touch spell, and then placing that hand back on the weapon to make a full attack with the two-handed weapon seems completely legit. This is balanced by the fact that the duskblade can only use this ability a very limited number of times a day.
You cannot hold a two handed weapon in one hand at all (unless you take the Monkey Grip feat).
The rules for shields say light shields (not heavy) let you carry other items in that hand but it also says you cannot use weapons with it. A strict interpretation would prevent you from putting the weapon in your shield hand. A more loose interpretation would allow it, but would this mean you "sheathing" the weapon in a sense, meaning you must now draw it again (from your shield hand)? I would say yes. If this is the case then sheathing is a move action and drawing is also a move action. Thus if you have quick draw you could use a move action to shift the weapon into your shield hand, swift action the spell, quick draw the weapon and then attack.
|
|
On the other hand, removing a hand from a two handed weapon, using the Quick cast power to quick cast and deliver a touch spell, and then placing that hand back on the weapon to make a full attack with the two-handed weapon seems completely legit. This is balanced by the fact that the duskblade can only use this ability a very limited number of times a day.You cannot hold a two handed weapon in one hand at all (unless you take the Monkey Grip feat).
The rules for shields say light shields (not heavy) let you carry other items in that hand but it also says you cannot use weapons with it. A strict interpretation would prevent you from putting the weapon in your shield hand. A more loose interpretation would allow it, but would this mean you "sheathing" the weapon in a sense, meaning you must now draw it again (from your shield hand)? I would say yes. If this is the case then sheathing is a move action and drawing is also a move action. Thus if you have quick draw you could use a move action to shift the weapon into your shield hand, swift action the spell, quick draw the weapon and then attack.
You can't wield a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand, you can still carry it. Otherwise, how do all those wizards with staves and sorcerers with spears cast their spells?
Slight Tangent: How many DM's make their cleric players keep a hand free for spells?|
|
On the other hand, removing a hand from a two handed weapon, using the Quick cast power to quick cast and deliver a touch spell, and then placing that hand back on the weapon to make a full attack with the two-handed weapon seems completely legit. This is balanced by the fact that the duskblade can only use this ability a very limited number of times a day.You cannot hold a two handed weapon in one hand at all (unless you take the Monkey Grip feat).
The rules for shields say light shields (not heavy) let you carry other items in that hand but it also says you cannot use weapons with it. A strict interpretation would prevent you from putting the weapon in your shield hand. A more loose interpretation would allow it, but would this mean you "sheathing" the weapon in a sense, meaning you must now draw it again (from your shield hand)? I would say yes. If this is the case then sheathing is a move action and drawing is also a move action. Thus if you have quick draw you could use a move action to shift the weapon into your shield hand, swift action the spell, quick draw the weapon and then attack.
You can't wield a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand, you can still carry it. Otherwise, how do all those wizards with staves and sorcerers with spears cast their spells? In a campaign that Wereplatypus ran, I had an eldritch knight who used a greatsword just so I could cast a spell if need be without stowing or dropping anything.
Slight Tangent: How many DM's make their cleric players keep a hand free for spells?
You cannot hold a two handed weapon in one hand at all (unless you take the Monkey Grip feat).
Sure you can - you just can't use it for anything while it is in one hand.
You can't wield a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand, you can still carry it. Otherwise, how do all those wizards with staves and sorcerers with spears cast their spells?
I interpret wield and 'carry' to be the same thing, especially when you are trying to 'carry' a weapon in combat.
Quarterstaffs are an exception to the rule. The description specifically says you can wield them in one hand. It's also considered a two weapon fighting weapon for the purpose of using it with two hands.
|
You can't wield a 2-handed weapon in 1 hand, you can still carry it. Otherwise, how do all those wizards with staves and sorcerers with spears cast their spells?I interpret wield and 'carry' to be the same thing, especially when you are trying to 'carry' a weapon in combat.
Quarterstaffs are an exception to the rule. The description specifically says you can wield them in one hand. It's also considered a two weapon fighting weapon for the purpose of using it with two hands.
I'm with Jeremy and Tessius on this one. There is no rule that states that simply holding a two-handed weapon requires two hands.
I'm with Jeremy and Tessius on this one. There is no rule that states that simply holding a two-handed weapon requires two hands.
I interpret wield and hold to be the same term, especially in combat.
If wielding a weapon in combat and "carrying" a weapon in combat are separate then are you technically drawing and sheathing weapons if you shift from one hand to the other? If so wouldn't that require two move actions?
"Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action."
|
|
That point of hardly debatable minutia aside, any others opinions or insights into the powerlevel of Duskblades?
Post prior to this one was part of a reply that I thought I canceled. Here's the part that wasn't included:
"Two-handed:Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively." PH pg. 113."Use" not carry or hold, mind you.