This says that overcomming the Arcane Spell Failure Chance is a very very big deal. Granting even the first tier of it to the first level of a base class becomes a massive step.Where does it say this? The bard gets it, and it's not a big deal. You know why? The bard's not casting anything too offensive that early on (or really ever, the bard gets a ton of class abilities in addition to this, medium BAB, and spellcasting, all at 1st-level).
"Not casting anything too offensive?" It depends on your definition of "offensive," I guess; if you mean "direct damage," then yeah bards make poor blasters; if you mean "disabling," then bards can do fairly well, even at 1st level.
Offensive bard spells:
1st- animate rope (bards automatically have proficiency with whips), cause fear, charm person, hideous laughter, hypnotism, lesser confusion, sleep, summon monster I
2nd- blindness/deafness, daze monster, enthrall, glitterdust, hold person, hypnotic pattern, pyrotechnics, scare, sound burst, summon monster II, summon swarm
3rd- charm monster, confusion, deep slumber, fear, summon monster III
...
Bards also gain a good selection of buff/debuff spells, which can help them fill the melee combatant role if they wish.
3) Weak caster, full combat ability. This is the option that is not available using the current "core" rules. This option would have full BAB and casting progression would be limited to 4th level spells.I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. There are three incredibly different things meant by most of the terminology being used here, and honestly I think they could all use a base class, and I would love to see a base class for each of them. However, what is being asked for is the third option, which you agree doesn't exist within the current rules without home content, third party content, or 3.5 content.
I don't think anybody's really, truly knocking the potential of the bard to fit into the second category and be a reasonable fighter and a reasonable caster. At least, I'm not. I think what people are arguing is that the bard is a worthless candidate for the third category. It doesn't have enough combat potential to compete with the fighter for his role...
The thing is, there are some people who are holding up the 3.5 duskblade as the standard for the "third option;" or at least a variant class with full BAB and 6th level spells. Basically, they want the bard's spell progression with a more "offensive" (blaster) spell list, medium or heavy armor without spell failure, and not have to give up anything on BAB.
A bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X, with Magical Knack (Bard) and heroism (a 2nd level bard spell) up, can match the BAB of a fighter (roughly; iterative attacks will lag slightly), which puts him at about the same level of combat ability as a cleric with divine favor/divine power (at a more efficient use of spell slots). Considering that the bard spell list has more debuff and disabling spells than the cleric list, the bard/eldritch knight can do at least as well in the combat role, IMO.
Then again, despite what some people claim, I have not seen a single example of a PF cleric being able to out-shine (or even equal) a PF fighter (with level appropriate gear) as a melee combatant. Hence, the argument that a bard can't fight as well as a fighter is meaningless.
You can call it a cheese sammich if you want, and I'd still be interested in taking a look at something based on the Bard chassis without all the singing and dancing business. James has brought up the Bard a few times in discussions like this, and wondered why those of us who are so into fighter/wizards ignore them. For me, it's all the performance-based abilities and trapping (spell lists included) that make the Bard not at all what I'm looking for. Battling foes with spell and sword, yes, singing "Fa la la la la, we'll kick your ass!", not so much. Nor rousing oration, a quick jig, or any of that stuff.didn't Mr. Jacobs mention the APG having features for the bard to make it an arcane warrior?He did allude to that, yes. I have my doubts about whether or not it can be done effectively without removing the whole singing and dancing bit and replacing it with something more thematically appropriate, but perhaps they plan to do just that. If they do it up in that manner though, can you really still call it a Bard? Not that I think what you call a class makes a difference, mind you.
This is basically what I was getting at about "people knocking the bard" in my earlier post. It's a mental image getting in the way of mechanical consideration.
So, take away Bardic Performance abilities and replace them with bonus combat feats for an easy fix (1st level, 2nd level, 4th level, etc.); similar to a martial rogue variant. The bard spell list has a good selection of buff/debuff, incapacitating, information gathering, and summoning spells, so what sort of selection are you looking for? If it's blasting/direct damage, then you may need to limit the spell list more than normal (i.e., like the 3.5 beguiler or warmage), to avoid stepping too much on the sorcerer/wizard.
The thing is, there are some people who are holding up the 3.5 duskblade as the standard for the "third option;" or at least a variant class with full BAB and 6th level spells. Basically, they want the bard's spell progression with a more "offensive" (blaster) spell list, medium or heavy armor without spell failure, and not have to give up anything on BAB.
A bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X, with Magical Knack (Bard) and heroism (a 2nd level bard spell) up, can match the BAB of a fighter (roughly; iterative attacks will lag slightly), which puts him at about the same level of combat ability as a cleric with divine favor/divine power (at a more efficient use of spell slots). Considering that the bard spell list has more debuff and disabling spells than the cleric list, the bard/eldritch knight can do at least as well in the combat role, IMO.
Then again, despite what some people claim, I have not seen a single example of a PF...
Duskblade is a perfect example of what we're looking for. It had spells that strictly helped it in melee combat. Dispite what you may think it was not overpowered compared even to what other melee classes could accomplish at similar levels. However I'd still be willing to knock it down to paladin/ranger progression if some of the functionality of "casting spells while attacking" were subsumed by well crafted class abilities.
Full BAB, bard-like progression, casting in medium armor, 1 good save, and 2 skills/level sounds like a perfectly balanced class to me. It ALL comes down to what spells he gets and how he casts them. If I made a class with 300 spell slots at 1st level would that be overpowered? What if I told you the only spell I can cast is Prestidigitation?
Also, can we just collectively get OFF the Bard thing? Bard doesn't accomplish what we're looking for as far as theme, spell selection, melee capability, or really anything else. With the exception of being able to cast in light armor, taking levels in sorcerer would be strictly better, but that's still not the solution we're looking for.
I'm pretty late to this discussion, but an option occurs to me that perhaps the OP overlooked from Unearthed Arcana, and maybe its a concept that Paizo could pick up and run with, I don't know, but remember the Battle Sorcerer? 3/4 BAB, d8 hit dice, martial weapon proficiency, can wear light armour, otherwise as sorcerer with a spell list and spells/day reduced by one per level.
Is this Jen, my daughter? Probably not, since she is 30+, out on her own, and we didn't have cheesecake at the Thanksgiving dinner at my son's place. But my wife wanted to know what I was laughing so hard!!!!!
-- david
Papa.DRB
Just because i like anime doesn't mean i'll dive face first into cheesecake, my left hand was holding the fork. right hand pressing keys. it's not polite to dive face first into yummy yummy cheesecake. it gets a slapping across the face from an anal retentive father. and i'm female. i gotta have some manners to keep me on a higher position than the men i manipulate.
|
"Not casting anything too offensive?" It depends on your definition of "offensive," I guess; if you mean "direct damage," then yeah bards make poor blasters; if you mean "disabling," then bards can do fairly well, even at 1st level.
Actually, what I meant by "offensive" was "spells so powerful in the hands of the bard as to be an offensive concept." In retrospect it was a poor choice of words, as you clearly believed I meant the opposite of "defensive" when I really meant "liable to offend someone."
The thing is, there are some people who are holding up the 3.5 duskblade as the standard for the "third option;" or at least a variant class with full BAB and 6th level spells. Basically, they want the bard's spell progression with a more "offensive" (blaster) spell list, medium or heavy armor without spell failure, and not have to give up anything on BAB.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. I know there are people holding up the 3.5 duskblade as the standard for the third option, because I'm one of them. The duskblade is my favourite class of all time, and is exactly what I had in mind when I started the thread. I know people keep throwing 6th-level spells out there, but I think that's just a starting point. The duskblade only went up to 5th-level, and I honestly think most of us would be happy with up to 4th-level. To be frank, however, a 6th-level spell list could very definitely be concocted without over-powering this class. I honestly don't think too many people are interested in much blastiness. If I'm wrong, maybe you could show me some quotes, but I think most of us are pretty focused on melee combat and think that blasting capability should be at a minimum if included at all.
A bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X, with Magical Knack (Bard) and heroism (a 2nd level bard spell) up, can match the BAB of a fighter (roughly; iterative attacks will lag slightly), which puts him at about the same level of combat ability as a cleric with divine favor/divine power (at a more efficient use of spell slots). Considering that the bard spell list has more debuff and disabling spells than the cleric list, the bard/eldritch knight can do at least as well in the combat role, IMO.
Then again, despite what some people claim, I have not seen a single example of a PF cleric being able to out-shine (or even equal) a PF fighter (with level appropriate gear) as a melee combatant. Hence, the argument that a bard can't fight as well as a fighter is meaningless.
Lagging in iterative attacks isn't a deal-breaker for me, but it's certainly not something to completely gloss over. The real problem here is that the bard just isn't what people are asking for. Its spell list isn't remotely similar to what people have in mind, and its song-and-dance (or orate, or joke, or whatever other type of performance) routine amounts to an incredible amount of wasted mechanics when using the class to build this concept. Honestly, filling a role, or accomplishing a certain level of combat ability, or whatever else, is all well and good, and I agree that options for accomplishing builds in the abstract are important, but I also like specific options, and I'd be much happier with a class built to handle this role that has its own set of relevant class abilities than I would forcing a bard into a role it was never meant to play and calling it a different name. Why force people into bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X when they could have the option of choosing arcane-fighty-guy X? The more options, the better!
This is basically what I was getting at about "people knocking the bard" in my earlier post. It's a mental image getting in the way of mechanical consideration.
That's not really a fair assessment. The notion of the performance-oriented bard is both a mental image and a mechanical consideration. Really, its class abilities are mostly geared toward performance. Yes, the notion of a class that's meant to be telling dramatic stories or singing epic songs somewhat bothers me and feels extremely limiting from a role-playing perspective, but that would be easy to ignore if the mechanics didn't all directly tie into the concept. And it's pretty unfair to say "you should play a bard and stop pestering Paizo to make a new class for you" if playing a bard probably necessitates intentionally failing to use my own abilities for role-playing reasons. That just sounds like you're asking me to choose the wrong class.
So, take away Bardic Performance abilities and replace them with bonus combat feats for an easy fix (1st level, 2nd level, 4th level, etc.); similar to a martial rogue variant. The bard spell list has a good selection of buff/debuff, incapacitating, information gathering, and summoning spells, so what sort of selection are you looking for? If it's blasting/direct damage, then you may need to limit the spell list more than normal (i.e., like the 3.5 beguiler or warmage), to avoid stepping too much on the sorcerer/wizard.
This may be a consideration for home games, but doesn't do anything to help the problem of playing in Pathfinder Society.
I'm pretty late to this discussion, but an option occurs to me that perhaps the OP overlooked from Unearthed Arcana, and maybe its a concept that Paizo could pick up and run with, I don't know, but remember the Battle Sorcerer? 3/4 BAB, d8 hit dice, martial weapon proficiency, can wear light armour, otherwise as sorcerer with a spell list and spells/day reduced by one per level.
Actually, I mentioned battle sorcerer specifically in the original post, as sort of a last ditch "well if you won't do this, maybe at least do that" sort of request (and also because I secretly hoped that something like a battle sorcerer might still be squeezed into the APG). Truth be told, however, the battle sorcerer as written in Unearthed Arcana is pretty lacklustre, and even if fixed would really be more of an example of medium-good fighter/medium-good wizard, as opposed to good fighter/weak wizard, which is really what's being asked for. The battle sorcerer fights for space with the bard, not with the duskblade.
Is this Jen, my daughter? Probably not, since she is 30+, out on her own, and we didn't have cheesecake at the Thanksgiving dinner at my son's place. But my wife wanted to know what I was laughing so hard!!!!!
-- david
Papa.DRBJust because i like anime doesn't mean i'll dive face first into cheesecake, my left hand was holding the fork. right hand pressing keys. it's not polite to dive face first into yummy yummy cheesecake. it gets a slapping across the face from an anal retentive father. and i'm female. i gotta have some manners to keep me on a higher position than the men i manipulate.
no, it's not.
|
I wonder... if there could be a very simple solution to those who want a "gish" class in the form of a feat.
I'd allow it in my games... but it's unlikely that the general gaming public would accept it, alas. I anticipate folks thinking it's game breaking (braces self for backlash!)... lol!
A sorcerer's selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells and two 1st-level spells of her choice. At each new sorcerer level, she gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by her Charisma score; the numbers on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known are fixed.) These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study.
So not broken per se, since the Sorcerer can already do this.
|
|
That's an interesting way to look at it. This puts mechanics to something already in the canon.
I might add a caveat on the feat saying that "The Divergent Spell can only be used a maximum number of times per day equal to the caster's spellcasting ability modifier. i.e. A Bard with a Charisma of 20 who can cast Fireball can cast that Fireball no more than 5 x per day".
This keeps the Sorcerer who takes the Bardic Cure Moderate Wound Spells, from doing too much healing. So the caster can have the flavor of another class, but not usurp that role entirely, but still have plenty of fun using their new spell.
Um wow no. The Sorcerer and only the Sorcerer can and should be allowed to learn new unique spells without spending a long time in research. The old school research rules never worked well anyway. I have played a Sorcerer who was friends with the bard and picked up soem healing from him before. No big deal. Used it all the time. I don't want Limits on what can already be done. I want to see a Wizard/Fighter who has not only a good BAB but also competent spell casting who has his Own niche in the party. Sort of an Arcane Ranger class.
Armor: Maybe a little light, but understandable. Plus you can take Arcane Armor Training if you find you need heavier.
Swift actions just seem to cost too much for something you are going to use so regally, so in other words Arcane Armor Training, its a TRAP.
Duskblade is a perfect example of what we're looking for. It had spells that strictly helped it in melee combat. Dispite what you may think it was not overpowered compared even to what other melee classes could accomplish at similar levels. However I'd still be willing to knock it down to paladin/ranger progression if some of the functionality of "casting spells while attacking" were subsumed by well crafted class abilities.
The power problems with the duskblade were pretty much two-fold: available spell slots and spell selection. The number of spell slots that a duskblade received quickly grew to obscene levels, basically giving the duskblade the ability to channel spells (and use blade of blood) almost at will. The spell selection was also (IMO) overpowered: Kelgore's fire bolt, Melf's acid arrow, and scorching ray are OK, but doom scarabs, channeled pyroburst, enervation, phantasmal killer, shout, Bigby's clenched fist, chain lightning, disintegrate, and polar ray push the class concept way past something that "had spells that strictly helped it in melee combat."
Then there's the 13th level ability to channel vampiric touch into all melee attacks in a given round (+6d6 or more damage on every attack, no save, which are gained as temporary hp, for the use of a single spell slot); with a haste effect or a speed weapon and/or Combat Reflexes or other feats that increase the number of attacks, that's a lot of possible targets. In addition, a duskblade could take 4-7 levels of spellsword (published in 3.0 AND 3.5 before the release of PHBII) for the ability to channel any spell (not just touch spells) through a weapon attack (granted, a limited number of times a day) and expanded armor use. Plus, taking the Arcane Strike feat from Complete Warrior gave the duskblade even more ability to "load up" on damage.
Yes, the duskblade was overpowered as written.
A version of the duskblade with spell progression and spell list more in line with the paladin or ranger (or hexblade) is basically what I was talking about as option 3). "Full BAB, bard-like progression, casting in medium armor" is not.
Duskblade is a perfect example of what we're looking for. It had spells that strictly helped it in melee combat. Dispite what you may think it was not overpowered compared even to what other melee classes could accomplish at similar levels. However I'd still be willing to knock it down to paladin/ranger progression if some of the functionality of "casting spells while attacking" were subsumed by well crafted class abilities.The power problems with the duskblade were pretty much two-fold: available spell slots and spell selection. The number of spell slots that a duskblade received quickly grew to obscene levels, basically giving the duskblade the ability to channel spells (and use blade of blood) almost at will. The spell selection was also (IMO) overpowered: Kelgore's fire bolt, Melf's acid arrow, and scorching ray are OK, but doom scarabs, channeled pyroburst, enervation, phantasmal killer, shout, Bigby's clenched fist, chain lightning, disintegrate, and polar ray push the class concept way past something that "had spells that strictly helped it in melee combat."
Then there's the 13th level ability to channel vampiric touch into all melee attacks in a given round (+6d6 or more damage on every attack, no save, which are gained as temporary hp, for the use of a single spell slot); with a haste effect or a speed weapon and/or Combat Reflexes or other feats that increase the number of attacks, that's a lot of possible targets. In addition, a duskblade could take 4-7 levels of spellsword (published in 3.0 AND 3.5 before the release of PHBII) for the ability to channel any spell (not just touch spells) through a weapon attack (granted, a limited number of times a day) and expanded armor use. Plus, taking the Arcane Strike feat from Complete Warrior gave the duskblade even more ability to "load up" on damage.
Yes, the duskblade...
Let me ask you something. Is it overpowered that a fighter gets +2 damage on all attacks ALL DAY LONG?! with weapon specialization? With splatbooks it can climb to absurd levels. Thats his thing: feats. Duskblade's thing was spells.
Getting an extra 6d6 on every attack (gasp! almost as good as a rogue at the same level! ALMOST) was not overpowered. Temporary hit points don't stack, you realize that right? The spell selection needed some fine tuning I'll admit, but even out of the box the Duskblade doesn't show up a properly optomized base fighter/bbn or rogue/ftr except in very specific circumstances. The Pathfinder fighter (not to mention the PF Paladin) is easily more powerful than the Duskblade.
You've CLEARLY never played the class, played with anyone who played the class, watched anyone play the class or anything else. Yours is the typical kneejerk reaction based on false assumptions. Your arguments are poor at best and your reasoning is nonexistant. I'm done trying to debate with people who don't know whereof they speak.
Duskblade is a perfect example of what we're looking for. It had spells that strictly helped it in melee combat. Dispite what you may think it was not overpowered compared even to what other melee classes could accomplish at similar levels. However I'd still be willing to knock it down to paladin/ranger progression if some of the functionality of "casting spells while attacking" were subsumed by well crafted class abilities.The power problems with the duskblade were pretty much two-fold: available spell slots and spell selection. The number of spell slots that a duskblade received quickly grew to obscene levels, basically giving the duskblade the ability to channel spells (and use blade of blood) almost at will. The spell selection was also (IMO) overpowered: Kelgore's fire bolt, Melf's acid arrow, and scorching ray are OK, but doom scarabs, channeled pyroburst, enervation, phantasmal killer, shout, Bigby's clenched fist, chain lightning, disintegrate, and polar ray push the class concept way past something that "had spells that strictly helped it in melee combat."
Then there's the 13th level ability to channel vampiric touch into all melee attacks in a given round (+6d6 or more damage on every attack, no save, which are gained as temporary hp, for the use of a single spell slot); with a haste effect or a speed weapon and/or Combat Reflexes or other feats that increase the number of attacks, that's a lot of possible targets. In addition, a duskblade could take 4-7 levels of spellsword (published in 3.0 AND 3.5 before the release of PHBII) for the ability to channel any spell (not just touch spells) through a weapon attack (granted, a limited number of times a day) and expanded armor use. Plus, taking the Arcane Strike feat from Complete Warrior gave the duskblade even more ability to "load up" on damage.
Yes, the duskblade...
I will agree that as written Arcane Strike was horrifically overpowered. I was in a particularly brutal game and ended up using stacking arcane strike A lot. It should have bee a swift action, and made the weapon count as magical.
After much thought, I have noticed that yes, with a tone of alternate features to the bard, and a variant sorcerer we do have the #2 of the 3 different types of casters.
#1. Wizard/Sorcerer
#2. Cleric/Druid
#3. Paladin/Ranger
They are an arcane cleric. And I don't think they are they Mage/Fighter we are looking for.
Actually, I mentioned battle sorcerer specifically in the original post, as sort of a last ditch "well if you won't do this, maybe at least do that" sort of request (and also because I secretly hoped that something like a battle sorcerer might still be squeezed into the APG). Truth be told, however, the battle sorcerer as written in Unearthed Arcana is pretty lacklustre, and even if fixed would really be more of an example of medium-good fighter/medium-good wizard, as opposed to good fighter/weak wizard, which is really what's being asked for. The battle sorcerer fights for space with the bard, not with the duskblade.
Hmm. Ok, how does this sound:
Take the bard BAB, armour proficiency & Spell progression. Add in full martial weapon proficiency and pick spells from the sorcerer spell-list. Add a few cool abilities and maybe some bonus combat feats.
Sound like a good place to start?
|
|
No. Which seat is this character sitting in? Unless the "cool abilities" make up for its deficiencies in dealing damage and not dying, then this character is just the bard with better weapons and better spells.Hmm. Ok, how does this sound:
Take the bard BAB, armour proficiency & Spell progression. Add in full martial weapon proficiency and pick spells from the sorcerer spell-list. Add a few cool abilities and maybe some bonus combat feats.
Sound like a good place to start?
And still not compatible with Society play.....
Here's an idea, how about we all decide to let Paizo know that we want something from them, give them a general idea of what is wanted out of that idea, have people show that there is a big desire for it, and allow them to craft the response. Community designing is all great (especially the Ironmage thread's design which I think Paizo should just smooth out and release as official) but in the end the only thing that makes this issue get solved is if Paizo recognizes that a good amount of the community wants this and decides to release an official response to it.
No. Which seat is this character sitting in? Unless the "cool abilities" make up for its deficiencies in dealing damage and not dying, then this character is just the bard with better weapons and better spells.
It can't deal the damage of a fighter and be as difficult to kill as a fighter and still have significant magic. Unless you want to make the fighter and, probably, wizard obsolete. And that is not going to happen. What limitations do you suggest?
<to Meatrace and A Man In Black>
An extra +21 damage (on average) on all attacks in a round, using any weapon, without needing flanking or surprise (and not countered by Improved Uncanny Dodge), that affects creatures immune to critical hits, that affects creatures with cover/concealment, that doesn't have to deal with a 20% miss chance from using blink, that also heals the combatant/provides extra hp is more powerful than anything a 13th level fighter or rogue can manage. The only brake on it's power is spell resistance and non-living targets.
At 13th level, the duskblade has 9 1st level spell slots, 8 2nd level spell slots, and 6 3rd level spell slots (plus extra for high Int). Arcane Strike is activated as a free action for +2 on all attack rolls and +2d4 on all damage rolls for 2 rounds (sacrificing a 2nd level spell), blade of blood is cast as a swift action to add +3d6 on the first successful attack (the 5 hp of damage is regained from the vampiric touch effect, anyway), and the duskblade channels vampiric touch as part of a full attack action. Attack bonus is +15/+10/+5 (+16/+16/+11/+6 with a haste effect), plus bonuses for Str, weapon enhancement, Weapon Focus and other feats, etc. Damage is normal weapon + Str + enhancement, plus +2d4 (Arcane Strike) + 6d6 (vampiric touch) with an extra +3d6 (blade of blood) on the first successful attack; that's +26 damage per hit on average (21 from vampiric touch), +36 on the first successful hit. Bonuses apply to AoO and any extra attacks granted by circumstances, feats, etc. that round; it's quite probable that the duskblade is doing 100+ points of damage total for the round. The second round of the Arcane Strike effect can be used to channel chill touch, shocking grasp, ghoul touch, or touch of idiocy into all attacks while still benefiting from the +2 attack bonus and the +2d4 damage bonus. Repeat up to six times a day.
And the whole "judge the class in isolation" thing? That was part of the whole problem with the 3.5 splatbooks in the first place. There didn't seem to be any consideration of how the abilities of class X interacted with prestige class Y and feat Z (or even how feat Z interacted with feat A). I don't want PF RPG to follow down the same path.
<to Meatrace and A Man In Black>
An extra +21 damage (on average) on all attacks in a round, using any weapon, without needing flanking or surprise (and not countered by Improved Uncanny Dodge), that affects creatures immune to critical hits, that affects creatures with cover/concealment, that doesn't have to deal with a 20% miss chance from using blink,
So far you're describing an average PF paladin at lvl 10
that also heals the combatant/provides extra hp is more powerful than anything a 13th level fighter or rogue can manage. The only brake on it's power is spell resistance and non-living targets.
so like what 90% of encounters at that level.
At 13th level, the duskblade has 9 1st level spell slots, 8 2nd level spell slots, and 6 3rd level spell slots (plus extra for high Int). Arcane Strike is activated as a free action for +2 on all attack rolls and +2d4 on all damage rolls for 2 rounds (sacrificing a 2nd level spell), blade of blood is cast as a swift action to add +3d6 on the first successful attack (the 5 hp of damage is regained from the vampiric touch effect, anyway)
you need to read up on temporary hit points.
, and the duskblade channels vampiric touch as part of a full attack action. Attack bonus is +15/+10/+5 (+16/+16/+11/+6 with a haste effect), plus bonuses for Str, weapon enhancement, Weapon Focus and other feats, etc. Damage is normal weapon + Str + enhancement, plus +2d4 (Arcane Strike) + 6d6 (vampiric touch) with an extra +3d6 (blade of blood) on the first successful attack; that's +26 damage per hit on average (21 from vampiric touch), +36 on the first successful hit. Bonuses apply to AoO and any extra attacks granted by circumstances,
That's debatable. Re-reading the ability I suppose you can take that interpretation of "all melee attacks that round" I just took it as their full attack i.e. max 4 attacks 5 w/haste feats, etc.
that round; it's quite probable that the duskblade is doing 100+ points of damage total for the round.
Which is as much as a 6th level sorcerer fireballing, like, 5-10 targets depending on whether they make their save.
As long as we're assuming that everyone has access to all feats and spells and classes from at LEAST PHB2 and Complete Warrior(the book you took examples from), then we have to compare the duskblade to Frenzied Berserker using Shock Trooper type nonsense. Remember that a fighter with WF/GWF/WSpec/GWSpec/Weapon Mastery/Weapon Supremacy would have like, what, +4 hit and +6 dmg against all foes, living or dead, no save no sr, all day and night, never running out of slots, hacking and slashing until the cows come home.
If we're going to assume the absolute best possible situation to make our points then let's do that and we can continue to compare notes from there.
|
|
I've played the duskblade a lot. Let me assure you that I run out of spells per day all the time. Ring of wizardry is required wearing for a duskblade, in fact. Not to mention, most of the spells you cited as over-powered for the duskblade are, in fact, bad choices. I very rarely pick any of those spells because spells known are so incredibly limited when playing a duskblade you just don't have the luxury of picking spells that don't tie in to your primary strategy. You need shocking grasp early on and you need vampiric touch later on. Those are essential. Stuff like enervation, disintegrate, polar ray, etc.? Those spells are cool, and you might pick one, but you don't need any of them.
Duskblades absolutely are damage machines, but you cited a highly optimized version of the class, and I still don't believe that an optimized duskblade comes anywhere near the power level of most core classes optimized. It certainly isn't stepping on any cleric or wizard's toes, anyway. It's a damage machine, but when was damage ever an incredibly effective way to beat your opponents? Not to mention, spell resistance is a big, big issue for the class. By the time you're casting vampiric touch everything has spell resistance anyway. You screw up the caster level check and suddenly you're nowhere near a fighter in terms of effectiveness.
I don't think duskblades are perfect, but they're certainly 3.5's most valiant effort. Their spell list needs a little work for sure, but there's nothing inherently over-powered about them, and they definitely fit the bill pretty closely for what's being asked for in this thread.
No. Which seat is this character sitting in? Unless the "cool abilities" make up for its deficiencies in dealing damage and not dying, then this character is just the bard with better weapons and better spells.Hmm. Ok, how does this sound:
Take the bard BAB, armour proficiency & Spell progression. Add in full martial weapon proficiency and pick spells from the sorcerer spell-list. Add a few cool abilities and maybe some bonus combat feats.
Sound like a good place to start?
Well, I looked at the most acclaimed, well balanced gish class in 3.5. No, not the Duskblade, the Psychic Warrior. The bard's spells selections and number per day roughly match the PsyWar's point allowance and powers (and both max out at 6th level spells/powers). This ends up looking more like the battle sorcerer, but with spell progression that is more limited in level but better in scope.
And basically, the bard with better weapons and spells is exactly what you want for a gish, because of the aforementioned reasons of you can't have both the spell-power of the wizard and the combat power of the fighter, which is apparently your complaint. If you aren't a 5th wheel then the role you fill is the fighter's, using spells to enhance your attacks and defences. If anything, you crop the spell-list to largely include the buffs and touch-range spells that are most useful to this build.
|
|
If you aren't a 5th wheel then the role you fill is the fighter's, using spells to enhance your attacks and defences. If anything, you crop the spell-list to largely include the buffs and touch-range spells that are most useful to this build.
This! This is what we want! Honestly, we don't want a spell list as broad as the sorcerer's. Certainly most of the spells we want are sorcerer spells, but I think opening up other options both weakens the class's focus and strengthens its capabilities beyond being reasonable.
The battle sorcerer and bard are both medium-fighter/medium-casters. I think a strong-fighter/weak-caster is what Pathfinder's missing. And, again, as much as I'm all for house-ruling classes and coming up with custom alternative class abilities, it doesn't help one bit in Pathfinder Society.
|
|
<to Meatrace and A Man In Black>
An extra +21 damage (on average) on all attacks in a round, using any weapon, without needing flanking or surprise (and not countered by Improved Uncanny Dodge), that affects creatures immune to critical hits, that affects creatures with cover/concealment, that doesn't have to deal with a 20% miss chance from using blink, that also heals the combatant/provides extra hp is more powerful than anything a 13th level fighter or rogue can manage. The only brake on it's power is spell resistance and non-living targets.
At 13th level, the duskblade has 9 1st level spell slots, 8 2nd level spell slots, and 6 3rd level spell slots (plus extra for high Int). Arcane Strike is activated as a free action for +2 on all attack rolls and +2d4 on all damage rolls for 2 rounds (sacrificing a 2nd level spell), blade of blood is cast as a swift action to add +3d6 on the first successful attack (the 5 hp of damage is regained from the vampiric touch effect, anyway), and the duskblade channels vampiric touch as part of a full attack action. Attack bonus is +15/+10/+5 (+16/+16/+11/+6 with a haste effect), plus bonuses for Str, weapon enhancement, Weapon Focus and other feats, etc. Damage is normal weapon + Str + enhancement, plus +2d4 (Arcane Strike) + 6d6 (vampiric touch) with an extra +3d6 (blade of blood) on the first successful attack; that's +26 damage per hit on average (21 from vampiric touch), +36 on the first successful hit. Bonuses apply to AoO and any extra attacks granted by circumstances, feats, etc. that round; it's quite probable that the duskblade is doing 100+ points of damage total for the round. The second round of the Arcane Strike effect can be used to channel chill touch, shocking grasp, ghoul touch, or touch of idiocy into all attacks while still benefiting from the +2 attack bonus and the +2d4 damage bonus. Repeat up to six times a day.
And the whole "judge the class in...
What game do you play that 13th level characters aren't doing 100+ damage per round with a full attack? Usually by 8-10th I see occasional 100+ round (usually Sneak Attacks with flank or PAing Barbs) then by 11-12 most melee is around the 100hp/round mark. That comment is totally inline with what is going on at that level, not to mention the casters are 'save of suck' ing groups of baddies or dropping huge amounts of damage on groups of baddies.
You must be playing a different game or something...|
|
I've played the duskblade a lot. Let me assure you that I run out of spells per day all the time. Ring of wizardry is required wearing for a duskblade, in fact. Not to mention, most of the spells you cited as over-powered for the duskblade are, in fact, bad choices. I very rarely pick any of those spells because spells known are so incredibly limited when playing a duskblade you just don't have the luxury of picking spells that don't tie in to your primary strategy. You need shocking grasp early on and you need vampiric touch later on. Those are essential. Stuff like enervation, disintegrate, polar ray, etc.? Those spells are cool, and you might pick one, but you don't need any of them.
Duskblades absolutely are damage machines, but you cited a highly optimized version of the class, and I still don't believe that an optimized duskblade comes anywhere near the power level of most core classes optimized. It certainly isn't stepping on any cleric or wizard's toes, anyway. It's a damage machine, but when was damage ever an incredibly effective way to beat your opponents? Not to mention, spell resistance is a big, big issue for the class. By the time you're casting vampiric touch everything has spell resistance anyway. You screw up the caster level check and suddenly you're nowhere near a fighter in terms of effectiveness.
I don't think duskblades are perfect, but they're certainly 3.5's most valiant effort. Their spell list needs a little work for sure, but there's nothing inherently over-powered about them, and they definitely fit the bill pretty closely for what's being asked for in this thread.
+1
I wish that people who never saw a duskblade would stop making stupid comments about how awesomely overpowered they were because as someone who also played them a good amount they are not even close to overpowered. They don't out damage the heavy hitters in melee like a well made barb or fighter and they can't touch a pure caster in the spell department."Oh they get tons of spells". So? They are used to help boost his ability to contribute in a equal manner in a fight. Just like the fighter gets feats and the barb gets rage stuff. They also get a couple of abilities that help them not look ridiculous if they want to sling a ranged spell at something.
Once again, as everyone who really played one has said so far, the Duskblade is a very well-balanced class in 3.5.
I agree about the duskblade - they dish out some serious damage, but their spell selection is their big restriction. If their damage fails to drop a foe rapidly, then they have a problem. The Psychic Warrior is organised a little differently - they are more of a self-buffing, self-healing, self-arming build. I would actually rate them over the duskblade for their flexibility of build - you can make several different kinds of thematic psychic warrior, but duskblades always have to be damage-dealers.
I would want to make an arcane version of the psychic warrior rather than remake the duskblade as a gish class.
by the way, Paizo is selling the Book of Experimental Might for $10!!!!Whoa! Thanks for pointing that out. I went ahead and ordered a copy for myself, even though I bought the PDF just last week.
you're welcome
took advantage myself
|
|
Question about the Duckblade damage per round bit.
Are you expecting to be hitting the same target 4 times a round with the vampiric strike?
Consensus is that the channeled spell only hits each different target once, though that's by no means clear from the ability's description. My DM lets me hit the same target repeatedly and still have the spell affect them each time, though with vampiric strike you still have to pay attention to the rules for temporary hit points, as they don't stack.
The way to play a duskblade if your DM follows the strict interpretation of the text is to use a reach weapon and cleave feats.
Arcane Strike is activated as a free action for +2 on all attack rolls and +2d4 on all damage rolls for 2 rounds (sacrificing a 2nd level spell)
I misread the feat. Sorry.
Arcane Strike
...
Benefit: When you activate this feat (a free action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity)... You must sacrifice one of your spells for the day (of 1st level or higher)... but you gain a bonus on all your attack rolls for 1 round equal to the level of the spell sacrificed, as well as extra damage equal to 1d4 points x the level of the spell sacrificed.
(emphasis mine)
Stupid ambiguous wording. The example provided in the feat description makes it clear that it only lasts one round; it should read "gain a bonus on all your attack rolls, for 1 round, equal to the level of the spell sacrificed."
<back on topic>
The issue is that the duskblade can do that damage at the drop of a hat. He doesn't have to set up a charge or flank, he doesn't have to penalize his attack roll with Power Attack, he isn't penalized in any other way either (other than the use of spell slots), he isn't limited on target selection (other than the target must be living), etc.
That 10th level paladin only gets 2 x level damage on Smite Evil against "an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature." (PF RPG, pg. 60-61) Against other evil opponents it's only +level damage (and a big fat +0 against non-evil opponents).
And bringing up frenzied berserker? Sheesh! I'm stating that the duskblade is more powerful than the PF core and you counter with "this other non-core class is even more overpowered," as if that makes the duskblade OK.
Bonuses apply to AoO and any extra attacks granted by circumstances,That's debatable.
What part of "the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round" (PHB II, pg. 20) is debatable?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think what Matt meant was, does the Duskblade necessarily have the accuracy on all four attacks for that damage output to occur? Though I could be mistaken.
No, what Matt meant is that the Duskblade's full attack channel affects each target once, no matter how many times you smack him (I thought it was clear from the PHB II, but the Sage clarified it IIRC.
So against mooks, Vampiric touch away, against that dragon, not so much.
Part of your example Duskblade's power (Arcane Strike) comes from Complete Warrior. The point was that if we can mix and match 3.5 books to compare to PF, well, LOTS of ridiculous things can be created.
And bringing up frenzied berserker? Sheesh! I'm stating that the duskblade is more powerful than the PF core and you counter with "this other non-core class is even more overpowered," as if that makes the duskblade OK.
+2 on attack rolls and +2d4 damage? Just a small bonus to effectiveness. PF RPG's version of Arcane Strike would grant a +3 on attack rolls and no damage at 13th level, but without the need to burn a spell slot.
I will say it again: The issue is that the duskblade can do that damage at the drop of a hat. He doesn't have to set up a charge or flank, he doesn't have to penalize his attack roll with Power Attack, he isn't penalized in any other way either (other than the use of spell slots), he isn't limited on target selection (other than the target must be living), etc.
I think what Matt meant was, does the Duskblade necessarily have the accuracy on all four attacks for that damage output to occur? Though I could be mistaken.No, what Matt meant is that the Duskblade's full attack channel affects each target once, no matter how many times you smack him (I thought it was clear from the PHB II, but the Sage clarified it IIRC.
So against mooks, Vampiric touch away, against that dragon, not so much.
Against single opponents, yes it's less effective; that's when the 13th level duskblade pulls out channeled pyroburst (possibly using Energy Substitution and/or Sudden Maximize/a metamagic rod of Maximize) or phantasmal killer as his 4th level spell known (2 spell slots). Against 2-3+, the duskblade is doing a lot of damage against almost any group of opponents (as long as they're living), in almost any circumstance (no need to charge or flank), and can still attack at full bonus to maximize the chance of landing a blow (unlike Power Attack).
I will say it again: The issue is that the duskblade can do that damage at the drop of a hat. He doesn't have to set up a charge or flank, he doesn't have to penalize his attack roll with Power Attack, he isn't penalized in any other way either (other than the use of spell slots), he isn't limited on target selection (other than the target must be living), etc.
As can the PF paladin, except his bonuses multiply on crit as well and double against certain (very very common) monsters.
So if your complaint is that, optimized correctly, in a tactical situation where he can reach 4+ enemies and the board is arranged perfectly, with the right buffs and non-core feat selection, a few times a day, at 13th level and beyond, the Duskblade is at best marginally better at killing minion/mook monsters than, say, a Sorcerer using fireball or a raging barbarian using Whirlwind Attack.
Cry me a river.