Duskblade 6/Abjurant Champion 4/Eldritch Knight 10
Yeah I went there. Abjurant Champion. If your DM lets you then you totally should.
Personally, I think this thread has more charm while we stick to pathfinder only solutions. IMC I wouldn't allow the Duskblade. I think its an uber class and part of 3.5 creep along with the Radiant Servant.
The Meelee Bard is a cool build and I recommend looking at Treatmonks Bard File. You might start from there and see what your concept doesn't need - then trade the extras for different powers.
The PRC that I think you'd really like (from 3.5) is the 'Wizard of Shadowfell' by Scorched Urf Press. Its also over powered but I think you'd like the concept a lot. Very Gandalf like.
Sigurd
Fighter1/Wizard5/Eldritch Knight-season to taste. Serve and enjoy :)
Fighter1/Wizard5/Eldritch Knight-season to taste. Serve and enjoy :)This character is completely incapable in melee, so it's a wizard with slightly retarded casting progression in exchange for some more HP.
This, this, and more of this. Due to the entry requirements for the Eldritch Knight, the character is always going to be much more of a caster than a frontline fighter with magical tricks up his sleeve.
As Pathfinder stands currently, there really is no valid option for a melee focused Fighter/Mage outside of a Bard who specializes a bit on that sort of thing, and even then, the Bard is kind of halfassing it.
Nevermind that (in my opinion) the foppish entertainer type is totally not what comes to mind when picturing the classic Fighter/Mage.
Might I suggest the Thanemage out of the Advanced Player's Manual, if you are looking for something that is OGL (unlike the Duskblade). It shouldn't be too hard to bump up to PF, toss in wizard-like specialization and cantrips, and it should be fine.
EDIT: I would also say, if you find the term "gish" so distasteful, why not offer up an alternative term. Most people understand that "gish" while originally/technically only refer to gith fighter-mages, tends to refer to fighter-mages in general. It is a nice compact term. So please, if you want to complain about it, give a better term in its place, and fighter-mage isn't one.
I'm not arguing FOR the Eldritch Knight, just pointing out that in Pathfinder this and the Bard are kinda it. There will always be sacrifices in the path for a warrior/mage build in this system. It doesn't look like a hybrid fighter/caster is in the works.
|
The Classic Fighter/Mage... from what 2e? They were weak as hell and took forever to gain levels (nevermind the elven ftr/mage/thief!). Multiclassing in 2e was a pain!
As has been pointed out a character that is as brawny as a fighter AND casts "level appropriate" spells is TOO powerful. You cannot have both or you take away from the straight fighter and the straight wizard/sorcerer. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
--Vrock and Awe!
|
Might I suggest the Thanemage out of the Advanced Player's Manual, if you are looking for something that is OGL (unlike the Duskblade). It shouldn't be too hard to bump up to PF, toss in wizard-like specialization and cantrips, and it should be fine.
I agree thanemage is a viable alternative and looks balanced.
It was mentioned briefly above but Runeblade from the book of experimental might is very cool and would fit in Pathfinder easily as is.
There is also the mageblade from arcana evolved that the runeblade was partially based off of though that one would take a bit more to convert.
But, while on the subject. I feel that a "gish" style character doesn't have to be as powerful as a fighter and a wizard. Having a spell progression that doesn't progress as high as a wizard and combat abilites that don't overpower the fighters abilites is what many are looking for anyway.
Just looking at the mageblade from monte cook it has the increased movement in medium armor (but not in heavy) and up to 7th levels spells. You could still restrict the fighter only feats to the fighter. Seems like a perfect fit to me. I agree that Eldrich Knight and Arcane Archer do a fine job of this but understand why many want to avoid prestige classes.
I like base classes that aren't just multi-class wannabes.Like the paladin and ranger and bard, amirite?
True enough, but those classes do get mechanics and features that seperate them out some
I'm looking for ideas on building a Warrior/Mage. I'd like to stick to Pathfinder Core rules, standard 15 point buy, etc.
What are the different approaches to this archetype? There's the classic Fighter/Wizard/EK, of course, but what else? Fighter/Sorcerer/DD/EK? I might be able to swing the "base monk stuff on Int instead of Wis' feat from Dragon Compendium, so how would a Monk/Wizard go?
I recently put together a two-weapon Kukri fighter and it's 17th level spells known, 20th(magical knack trait + ioun stone) level caster, 18 BAB
start off with 1 fighter, next 8 levels are bard for dirge of doom to give all -2 saves. Next comes 10 levels of EK, followed by 1 fighter for greater weapon spec Kukri's. Dirge of doom combo'd with kukri's, improved critical and sickening critical you have a good chance of giving your target -4 saves against your crushing despair which will give it another 2 saves possibly debuffing in 1-2 rounds a char to -6 attack, -6 saves, -6 skills, -2 is guaranteed with no save from dirge of doom. Kind of a weird gish but would be a fun character I believe. Arcane strike becomes obsolete with magical kukri's but early on is a nice boost to the character. Seems like a fun one to play.
I'm looking for ideas on building a Warrior/Mage. I'd like to stick to Pathfinder Core rules, standard 15 point buy, etc.
What are the different approaches to this archetype? There's the classic Fighter/Wizard/EK, of course, but what else? Fighter/Sorcerer/DD/EK? I might be able to swing the "base monk stuff on Int instead of Wis' feat from Dragon Compendium, so how would a Monk/Wizard go?
another good option would be 2 monk/paladin 2/(sorc or bard 1)/DD 10 or DD4/EK10 (You need more sorc levels to get into EK if you take the second route)
there's always 5 bard/DD 10/5 bard
If you like ranged(good option for gish) 8 bard qualifies you for arcane archer
hmm what else, 5 fighter/2 Wiz/4 AA/9 EK or 10 AA/3EK
If you can do 3.5 there's a prestige class for monk/wizard in the complete arcane, it's a bit underpowered against pathfinder stuff but you can probably work with your DM to convert it over and beef it up a bit. It's a weak power but cool flavor class.
Hope one of those is a fun idea for you.
And what I'm saying is that a character who does everything a fighter does as good as a fighter does AND does everything a wizard/sorcerer does as good as a wizard/sorcerer does is not good game design.
Eldritch Knight is a pretty good solution. So is Dragon Disciple. So is arcane archer. But if that's not good enough... I'd suggest checking out Unearthed Arcana's rules for gestalt classes.
Personally this is not what I want. I want a class that is a melee fighting class which relies on spells rather than brute strength to do damage and harry opponents. Duskblade was a very good class, though it had its problems, and is more like what I personally look for.
Look, we have these character archetypes largely because of fiction characters. Frickin rangers only have dual wield because of Drizzt. What about your Rand al'Thors or Elrics of Melnibone, thoughtful but powerful warriors that relied as much on magical might as brawn.
I really don't think that a well thought out option along these lines could tip the scales any more than PF paladin!!!
=========================================================
You need to go further back in your cycle. Dual wielding has been around since AD@D. Drizzt Do'Urden is a 1E character. He has dual wield because it was THE combat option to have in 1E, and because Drow were the only race to get a 20 Dex, he could dual wield two scimitars with no penalty.i.e. Drizzt is actually a 1E munchkin build. His race had the highest mods, and for some reason, could actually become rangers. Add in all the specials, and the only question we have is why isn't he a R/D/MU? The very first character I made up when Unearthed Arcana came out was a 20 Dex Drow R/MU/D. Why? Because he could get higher level as a Ranger then a Fighter. 20 Dex, dual wield no penalty. My dude used longswords, however, which are superior to Scimitars. I wrote a thousand page story about him back in 1986, before Drizzt was a gleam in Salvatore's eye (OBsidian Darkstorm and his sister Ebony, F/Cl/Tf). When the first book came out, I was like, "Duh. Of course any Drow male melee would be a ranger. He can reach level 15 that way, get two attacks, and 20 dex for 4 at/rd! Win!!!" Gloss over the day blindness, and you're good to go!
If you want fantasy dual wielders, I suggest you read Fritz Leiber's Nehwon novels. Fafrhd and the Grey Mouser are both dual wielders, and big inspirations for AD&D.
I'd also note that Rand al'Thor is about a classic an Eldritch Knight build as you can get, but he's getting artifact/divine level bonuses because he IS the Dragon. Overpowered Template bonuses for the win.
Elric of Melnibone gets his fighting ability from his sword. Without Stormbringer, he's absolutely pitiful in combat. So, artifact weapon FTW. He also profits from exclusive access to a whole bunch of 9th levels spells no one else has. Note he's almost never seen using minor magic...using minor magic tends to be what defines a true wizard, as opposed to the Slay All Before Me powers your two choices tend to employ! :)
==Aelryinth
The Classic Fighter/Mage... from what 2e? They were weak as hell and took forever to gain levels (nevermind the elven ftr/mage/thief!). Multiclassing in 2e was a pain!
As has been pointed out a character that is as brawny as a fighter AND casts "level appropriate" spells is TOO powerful. You cannot have both or you take away from the straight fighter and the straight wizard/sorcerer. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
--Vrock and Awe!
You didn't play much 2e :)
Until levels 12-13, the multiclass characters were never more then a level or two behind the straight characters. Their combination of abilities more then made up for the level differences. Fight, your f/9 against my 7/7 with a Fire Shield up..guess who is going to win? Etc.
At higher levels it was also a moot point. There were enough combat buffing spells, and the higher level opponents tended to have caps on them, so your highest level could be 5 behind that of the rest of the party, and you still did fine.
Why did it work? Because in 1E, the fighter class gained power by its levels and its BAB. Levels got you multiple attacks...only melee classes got them. Fighters got full THACO...mages got 1/3, theives 1/2 and clerics 2/3. Being a 10/12 Fighter mage netted you generally about 4 hit points per level, +4 to hit, and 3/2 attacks (3 with two weapons). If the other fighter in the party was level 14, who cared? You had up to 6th level spells, and you were more then good enough to do combat duty with things like stoneskin, fire shield, and Tenser's Biting Blade going.
The current era of undervaluing the power of buffs and how much they overshadow melee abilities just irks me to no end.
The Fighter's hit points, BAB, armor profs, weapon profs, # of attacks, and feats are supposed to be the counterpoint to FULL SPELLCASTING ABILITY. From AD&D to now, they nerfed Fighter saves; gave away multiple attacks to other classes; took the cap off str and con for other classes, raising their melee dmg and hit points; made spellcasting in combat easy to do; devalued armor and weapon profs; and give away feats to other classes like no tomorrow.
Sorry, no sympathy for a gish class here that hits the ideal. For me, at level 20, a gish should max out somewhere around a 15/15 character in capability, no better. Spells are simply THAT good.
==Aelryinth
As has been pointed out a character that is as brawny as a fighter AND casts "level appropriate" spells is TOO powerful. You cannot have both or you take away from the straight fighter and the straight wizard/sorcerer. You can't have your cake and eat it too.Except for the duskblade and the runeblade and the cleric. There's no reason you couldn't have a martial character who supplements their melee with arcane magical abilities because people have totally designed reasonable classes that do that.
You will find remarkably few optimizers who agree that the cleric is a 'reasonable' and 'balanced' class. As a primary casting class, it is way, way overpowered.
Consider: 3/4 BAB, easily buffable to full by midlevels for combat.
Pretty much exclusive access to turning and cures on demand.
Full Caster level.
Complete access to all divine spells. Period. No acquisition needed.
IMMENSE spell list.
Choice of domains for bonus spells and/or feats, esp at 1st level.
Two good saves...and the best ones, no less.
D8 hit die.
The cleric should be a Poor BAB class with one good save, a chopped down spell list to reflect the options his domains give him, and Primary Casting ability.
the 'warrior' cleric should have bardic style access to spells, tops.
The Divine spell list is HUGE, and clerics can access ALL of it from day one. You can make a cleric perform ANY of the primary party functions with just the right domains and spell/feat choices. It isn't even that hard.
And yeah, all of them can still be cure machines.
========
The duskblade should have 3/4 BAB. The only reason he's approaching balance is because his spell list is so restricted in scope. however, as he levels, his weaknesses fall away, and he just gets better and better.
The runeblade also has a restricted spell list, and Monte also clamps down on some of the spells out there, including such basics as True Strike. Should still have 3/4 BAB, IMO. Spells ARE that good.
======
People keep wanting that full BAB. I say...get over it. Full BAB is your reward for little or no spellcasting. You want to cast spells, you pay for it.
I believe both Ranger and Paladin in PF should have d8's to 'pay' for their spellcasting, seeing as how they get a full slew of class benefits on top of those...and full access to their lists. But it's nominal enough that I can deal with it, esp with the Fighter upgrades.
===Aelryinth
And it's not that the cleric is conceptually overpowered, it's that its spell access (unlimited) and buffs (ridiculous) are too strong. (Is anyone claiming that Favored Souls are overpowered?) Just like any arcane cleric gish design would need to be informed by the failures of the Hexblade, Soulknife, and CW Samurai, it too would need to be informed by the failures of the Cleric and 3.5 Druid.
The duskblade should have 3/4 BAB. The only reason he's approaching balance is because his spell list is so restricted in scope. however, as he levels, his weaknesses fall away, and he just gets better and better.Really. What weaknesses would those be? He still doesn't have any significant defensive abilities despite being a melee class, and he's still a class that hits dudes in melee to do HP damage, a strategy that falls off in effectiveness as level increases. What's more, his main schtick is elemental damage on melee attacks, which is quite possibly the worst way to disable foes in the entirety of D&D. Those weaknesses don't fall away; they're weaknesses that become more apparent at high levels.
Full BAB isn't much more than a flag that says, "This is a melee class, use it to hit dudes." It's not a hugely powerful class ability.
The spell list and primary caster level ARE the huge things for the cleric. Until you restrict those, the cleric will be overpowered. It's really that simple. The favored Soul isn't overpwoered because it is RESTRICTED on spells. the lack of versatility really showed through.
And no turning/persistent spell abuse for buffs, heh.
THe Duskblade's defensive shortcomings can all be done away with via magic items as he levels. The infliction on elemental damage you see as a shortcoming I have to laugh at. He can choose the element he wants to do on the fly, getting around resistances, and his damage scales by level, faster then resistances tend to mount. Immunities he just chooses the different type. You also are ignoring the usefulness of fire against cold subtypes, and cold against fire subtypes for damage kickers.
You also have to compare his damage output to those of a Melee doing the same job...which is who he's replacing. I rather doubt you can show that the Duskblade does consistently less damage then a pure Melee, simply because his damage scales by level.
====
Your comment on Full BAB is coming from the wrong side. My rejoinder is...if it is so unimportant, then obviously your spellcasters don't need it. They do, after all, have access to touch attacks and never missing spells.Pause.
Full BAB IS important. It's your ability to consistently hit and do dmg. It directly affects the amount of damage you do in melee combat, and how many attacks you get. If ALL YOU DO is melee combat, then you deserve a full BAB.
If you are a spellcaster, you do NOT deserve it. You're going to fail, because the guy who does it full time is better then you at fighting. You are better then he at spellcasting. Take your wins where you can.
That is his shtick. You chose magic to make up for your shortcomings.
FULL BAB is a precious thing. More attacks, sooner, and more success with those and your iteratives. You do not give it away anymore then you do caster levels. It is skill in FIGHTING. There should be a direct parallel between it and caster level.
I"ll note that because they were unable to use BAB as a hardpoint in Tome of 9 Swords, they 'invented' initiator level. What's this do? It discriminates against spellcasters. Initiator level plainly has huge value.
So does BAB. there's just so many ways to overcome the lack of it that some people just devalue it down. THe fact you are trying hard to convince people to give it away should be flagging YOU that it's more valuable then it seems.
===Aelryinth
The fact they envy one another shows some balance there. I credit WoTC with coming up with a spell list that wasn't imbalanced, unlike, say, the Psychic Warrior list of over the top buffs, and then giving bonus feats on top of that.
Duskblade does ranged attack pretty well...he does have those spells on his list, after all. He can use a mithral buckler for no spell failure chance and +6 to his AC for no use of feats, and a mere 26k gold. The focus on using a greatsword is probably the only weakness you had. You should have concentrated on a longsword, and simply used it two handed when you wanted more dmg. The dmg dif is 2.5 pts, fer Chrissakes.
As for him lacking feats...he got his spells!:) The fighter doubtless noted the use of True Strike and Power Attack and dmg spells doing over the top damage, and you noticed everything he could do without having to spend spell slots.
Still don't think you deserve full BAB as a Duskblade. Definitely NOT a d10.
==Aelryinth
Duskblade does ranged attack pretty well...he does have those spells on his list, after all. He can use a mithral buckler for no spell failure chance and +6 to his AC for no use of feats, and a mere 26k gold. The focus on using a greatsword is probably the only weakness you had. You should have concentrated on a longsword, and simply used it two handed when you wanted more dmg. The dmg dif is 2.5 pts, fer Chrissakes....okay, if your baseline of power is casting spells that do Xd6 damage at range, you're right, the Duskblade is overpowered.
===================
The prior poster was bringing up the subject of ranged attacks. we are comparing archery to streams of 12d6 scorching rays, probably empowered, maybe energized, etc. All deliverable as standard actions.==Aelryinth
So versatility is a quality that separates primary spellcasters from characters who do something else with magic as a backup? This is the most interesting thread of this; how can we meaningfully separate classes who stab people magically from people who cast spells?
========================================
Versatility is always brought up by caster lovers. Spells scaling with level. Going to bed and waking up with a totally different focus and competency for the day. USefulness in combat and out.Thus, you have to make the call: if you want to be so good at everything, then someone who specializes in a niche (combat) should be better then you can possibly be.
===================================I am assuming at least a minimum amount of competence at optimization from the melee. I'm assuming melee is taking advantage of things like Lion-totem for barbarians, Leap Attack and Shock Trooper, Cavalier and Bear Warrior and the like.
The Duskblade leaves core 3.5 melee in the dust because everything leaves core 3.5 melee in the dust. Including PF core melee (except barbarians, oops).
==============================
ANd thus, I say the Duskblade should have Medium BAB. It is REMARKABLE how things start to change when you lose an iterative attack, and take -25% chance to hit at high levels on all your attacks.
===================================So full spellcasting = +5 to hit over 20 levels? I'm skeptical.
=====================
the difference between full spellcasting is not a good comparison, because there is no poor spellcasting progression (fighters have ten caster levels? really????). Full BAB is to partial BAB as Primary spellcaster/full list is to partial spellcaster/restrained list.But Full BAB is the 'full spell list access' of the primary casters. It is a tremendous boon in combat that simply isn't seen until high levels. It's the difference between auto hits and misses; for hits with iteratives. Just compare the difference in dmg output between a Full BAB warrior and a Medium against an AC 40 opponent with the same base dmg bonuses. -5 th adds up in a real hurry (as does losing an iterative).
=========================I'm saying that BAB isn't an important class feature. It's comparable in importance to full fort saves. So yes, it's useful and nice to have, but it's not the thing that melee classes get over spellcasting in order to be better at melee than spellcasters.
========================
BAB is a monstrously important class feature. If it wasn't, so many people wouldn't be trying to get at it. You lose an attack...you get your attacks LATER (ugh, sounds like losing spellcaster levels, doesn't it?), and you can't employ things like Power Attack as effectively. It takes +10 Strength or Dex to replace that -5 at high levels. That's not that easy to come by!
Monstrously important. It should be enshrined as such. No touchie with spells.
=============================Instead, the thing that melee classes get over spellcasting in order to be better at melee than spellcasters are scaling class features that make them better at melee. Weapon Training, Smite, Rage, Favored Enemies...these are (at least in theory) the things that melee classes get over primary spellcasters to make them better at melee than primary spellcasters.
==================
These class benefits all ride on that Full BAB, because they need to hit to do dmg, and need more attacks to scale. Class features build on the basis of BAB. Just do the changes in dmg output from a level 20 BArb between Medium BAB and Full, and tell me BAB isn't important!
===============================I'm saying that there's a niche for a class that, say, has full BAB then uses spells as his scaling class feature to make himself better at melee. Perhaps "uses spells" is only (Su) or (Sp) tagged onto his class features, maybe it's a restricted spell list, maybe it's a class ability to turn normal attack spells into a buff on his attack routine, maybe it's magic that happens entirely out of combat to enhance his fighting in combat.
=========================
Then what you've got is a restricted spell list. Which is exactly what the gishes do NOT want. They want a full spell list, and you CANNOT give it to them. And if you give such a class access to the wrong spells, then you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
Spells give you options above and beyond damage, for the most part. A spell list with NO utility isn't really out there...and everyone would ignore it if it existed, as being useless.
If you want to use spells to replicate being a melee, then that better be all you can do. I hardly think that's likely. The Duskblade's ability to turn ranged attack spells into +d6's to his melee attacks, success guaranteed, to the targets of his choice, is huge...and yet he can still attack at range. if he wants to hit the unhittable, he can True Strike. And, he can pursue any single feat tree he wants, as so many Fighter nay-sayers like to argue.
==================================Full BAB isn't necessarily necessary, but it's a good way to say, "Yeah, this is totally a melee guy."
=========================
Given the implications of not having a full BAB, I'd have to agree...which is why spellcasters shouldn't get the full BAB. having to rely on touch attacks or spells to boost their chances to hit is a great equalizer, and limits their options and effectiveness.
You simply cannot give people Full BAB anymore then open spell lists. Full BAB is the 'full spell list' of D&D melee...it allows too much.===Aelryinth
The prior poster was bringing up the subject of ranged attacks. we are comparing archery to streams of 12d6 scorching rays, probably empowered, maybe energized, etc. All deliverable as standard actions.Doing 40-ish damage on a limited basis with a ranged attack, at level 11. Like, say, a smiting paladin with a bow? Or a ranger shooting his favored enemy?
More like 24d6 damage, no miss, elemental as desired, compared to single attacks from your paladin or ranger. to any foe, not to merely the Evil foe of the hour or your FE's. The Duskblade's spellsa re considerably more versatile on offense then ranger or paladin class abilities.
==Aelryinth
Don't forget it's not affected by fire resistance and archery usually has an easier time dealing with DR than melee (and the duskblade doesn't have the feat space to spare, or the breadth of direct damage spells to afford to take energy substitution)The prior poster was bringing up the subject of ranged attacks. we are comparing archery to streams of 12d6 scorching rays, probably empowered, maybe energized, etc. All deliverable as standard actions.Doing 40-ish damage on a limited basis with a ranged attack, at level 11. Like, say, a smiting paladin with a bow? Or a ranger shooting his favored enemy?
?? Archery usually has a TOUGHER time dealing with DR then melee, as I've been told. Metamagic rods can get him energy subbing. He also doesn't have to deal with DR at all for ranged spells...nor does he have to pull out his bow and arrow and sheathe his sword. He can just DO it, right now, not waste actions.
===Aelryinth
One additional small thing I should point out after skimming your last post, is that Paladins and Rangers are nolonger half casters. Their caster level is their class level -3, you can get back 2 of that with a PF trait, or all 3 with the 3.5 feat practiced spellcaster.
Full spell power is not as essential as a full spell list. Access to a broader and more powerful spell list is what seperates primary casters from partials. Giving rangers and paladins full spellcaster level doesn't hurt, because they are so restricted in numbers and types of spells. Generally, they get a few more hit points healed, overcome some hostile magic, or get a few minutes longer duration out of a low power buff.
Note that bards get full caster level, and are still considered weak. why? restricted spell list, and restricted spells castable. While Paladins adn rangers don't have the latter problem, they have very limited spells/day, and a very tight spell list.
===Aelryinth
So you wouldn't have a problem with a class that has a focused core competency that happens to be magic or spells? Like a full-BAB cleric that got Divine foo, but not the hojillion other random spells. (Obviously only a sketch concept.)
That doesn't explain anything. How is the duskblade better balanced because it can't hit as often? Why is magic inherently so good that a magic melee class needs -5 to hit over 20 levels to be balanced? The only reason BAB wouldn't matter at all is because you get +5 to hit back from class abilities/spellcasting (in which case why bother with the low BAB and the give-back?) or because you don't roll to hit (in which case you've probably stopped being a guy who hits dudes magically and started becoming a dude who casts spells).
But Duskblades can't do that at level 12 (or ever, near as I can tell). Hell, wizards can only do that for a little...
======================
1)Not at all sure you are talking about with the cleric.2) Better balanced because it can't hit? Go into the 4e math. It's all about math and dmg per round.
As it stands, Duskblades can do tremendous amounts of damage per attack. They can take a ranged or touch attack spell and stack it on top of weapon damage, and True Strike to make sure that the attack doesn't miss. At level 13, they can add that damage on all their attacks.
If you reduce their odds of hitting, you reduce their damage. iF you reduce their number of attacks, you reduce their damage. If you delay the time they get extra attacks, you make the choice of the class harder to play...delay now, uberness later.
Not being able to hit means not being able to deal out as much damage in whatever format you care to. Damage equalization starts applying...clearly, the Duskblade WON'T be so superior to the standard melee classes, if it can't hit as consistently to deal it's superior damage. Once your damage numbers are palatable with Melee, it's no longer a case of who is better, is what do you want to play?
3) Spending a feat or two, or grabbing a MM rod to up your ranged damage should be a sensible investment for a spellcaster, and being able to shove an Empowered Scorching Ray through your sword for 18d6 at level 11 should be worth the price.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, but bards get so much more too.
Bardic Music
Bardic Knowledge (If your playing with 3.5 splats try adding knowledge devotion for major win right there)
6 skill points per level.
Trust me when I say the bard (which was one of the weakest classes in 3.5 if not REALLY milked with non-core material) very well could be a stronger class than the duskblade (who, as I said before, was only a hair better than a 3.5 fighter)
A mxed out bard can be an utterly amazing melee combatant, especially with some of the spell upgrades.
Lingering song means not burning rounds/usage while he fights. Multiple feats and items exist to power up his singing buffs, and with lingering song he can layer them on himself.
In addition to things like spellcasting, healing, skill points, knowledge devotion, and taking Arcane strike for bonus dmg from copious spell slots on demand.
It's noteworthy that bards are still ranked higher on the CO scale then the pure melee classes, simply because you CAN design a really good melee bard...who does a whole lot more on the side.
But you know the difference between the bard and duskblade? It was that Full BAB. Go look at their spell lists side by side. Full cster levels, about the same amount/day. That full BAB made ALL the difference.
===Aelryinth
=========================================================
You need to go further back in your cycle. Dual wielding has been around since AD@D. Drizzt Do'Urden is a 1E character. He has dual wield because it was THE combat option to have in 1E, and because Drow were the only race to get a 20 Dex, he could dual wield two scimitars with no penalty.i.e. Drizzt is actually a 1E munchkin build. His race had the highest mods, and for some reason, could actually become rangers. Add in all the specials, and the only question we have is why isn't he a R/D/MU? The very first character I made up when Unearthed Arcana came out was a 20 Dex Drow R/MU/D. Why? Because he could get higher level as a Ranger then a Fighter. 20 Dex, dual wield no penalty. My dude used longswords, however, which are superior to Scimitars. I wrote a thousand page story about him back in 1986, before Drizzt was a gleam in...
I'll take your word about all that 1E and 2E stuff. Although I played 2E for years before 3.0 came out I don't remember the rules you speak of about Drow, mainly because we played in Dragonlance. Also the first Drizzt book was published in 1988 so I'll bet he was a bit more than a "gleam" at that point. But whatever. And yes I've read all the Lankhmar books, multiple times in fact. They didn't wield two of the same weapon. Now it's just getting nitpicky. Not the topic of this thread at all. Borderline insulting tbh.
ALL my point was is that we don't have a base class to represent iconic characters who are skilled in both arcane and martial arts. And if you say bard I'll smack you, because Elric is no smelly bard.
People, if you want to decry the power of a Full BAB, yuo have to know what you are comparing it to.
Do the Math.
at level 20, let's take a Barbarian with all the lovelies, and give one of them Full BAB and one of them Medium BAB.
They do about 30 dmg/attack base, and have +20 to hit or so (raging, etc).
We'll use an AC 40 opponent.
Medium BAB barb is at +35 to hit. He only gets three attacks. His sucess rate is 80/55/30 with his three attacks, for 165% damage/round, or about 50 pts/rd.
Full BAB is +40 base to hit. His success rate is 95/80/55/30, for 260% dmg/rd, or about 80 pts/rd.
30 pts/rd is nothign to sneeze at. But, we shall, of course, Power attack.
Full BAB Power Attacks for 5...because he can. His damage is now 45.
His attack chance is 80/55/30/5...170%. Or, roughly 75. I.e., he's hitting at the same odds as Buddy, but doing more damage, and has a 4th swing highly unlikely to hit.
Full BAB, no PA, does more damage over time. Nearly 50% more damage. BAB is IMPORTANT.
For standard attacks, the Medium Barb misses 1 in 5 times. The Full misses on a nat 1,and can even PA for 1 at the same odds. So 20% less dmg on SA's, over time, for the buddy.
The Full BARB got two attacks at 6, his Pounce became useful then. His inept buddy got it at 8.
Full BARB got his third attack at 11. His buddy had to wait to 15.
At 16, BARB got his 4th attack. His buddy gets nothing.
BAB lets you Power Attack, and still auto hit.
BAB lets you Expertise, and still auto hit.
BAB lets your iteratives hit as often as your companion's primaries. In essence, you do one attack/rd more of dmg then they do, all the time.
========
What this means is, if you've arranged a circumstance where a character can deal out large amounts of damage, you take away BAB and his damage drops significantly with the Penalty to hit and the loss of iteratives.
This is especially true when talking of spellcasters, who deal most of their damage via standard actions. SA"s are penalized much less with lower BAB. If you outperform melee damage on a SA, your BAB should drop like a stone to balance the odds.
And also, it puts harder limits on the use of things like Power Attack and Expertise, combat manuvers that work off BAB, and similar things.
The Gish 'ideal' of 16 BAB and 9th level spells, with access to a full spell list, is a structural game breaker, which is why Gish lovers want it so badly. The tradeoff should be medium BAB and Medium spellcaster...you aren't as good at both, but you're better at the opposite role then either party. You wanted to do both, you're not as good as the specialist...there is NOTHING wrong with that.
====
The Duskblade is effective because he HITS. Nothing more, nothing less. His BAB lets him do that, because otherwise he'd have to allocate considerable resources to upping his TH chance instead of his damage. It is the BAB which seperates him from the Bard in terms of melee effectiveness (that, and some killer spell to melee dmg abilities).
==Aelryinth
Are you saying that the bard was stronger or weaker than the duskblade? I'm lost here. The bard was stronger, because of piles of non-core material propping it up. The duskblade was a better implementation of a gish, because it stabs dudes magically while the bard casts spells and stabs dudes.It's noteworthy that bards are still ranked higher on the CO scale then the pure melee classes, simply because you CAN design a really good melee bard...who does a whole lot more on the side.
But you know the difference between the bard and duskblade? It was that Full BAB. Go look at their spell lists side by side. Full cster levels, about the same amount/day. That full BAB made ALL the difference.
The duskblade is non-core material. It's not in the SRD. You can't compare him to anything else THEN a supported bard.
The duskblade was made where they realized what it took to make a class, and its more focused on the melee dmg. Like the To9S classes, they had a better understanding of the game and balance.
Note: The Duskblade stabs things while channeling spells into them every round. The bard casts his buffs ahead of time, then sings and stabs them. It works out fairly similar. Noteworthy is that the prancing bard is probably going to hit his opponents a lot more then the Duskblade as his buffed bardsong scales, and his base dmg will be higher.
==Aelryinth