|
Well ya see you made the assumption that everyone would know it was used with a rebuilt system. It really will not work at all with core without well rebuilding it with core assumptions.
Ya put it down as a melee AA which ya know it is not. So yeah I reacted to that, I didn't know till later it was made for your rebuilt game. I was going off it being a melee AA and well its not in the same league as the AA but a few levels above and beyond it. If I had known from the get go it was 'balanced" with the other class rebuilds I would have reacted differently.
As for Arguing, I don't mind that really.
I'll try to remember to give better context in the future. I'd argue about what I assumed but it's moot now, so mea culpa. At least Kirth and I have feedback on how to tone it down for core. I still disagree that the talents are too much. You can 'cherry pick' as it were, but you won't get much more than the regular 3.5 PRCs gave. Especially cutting the caster progression back, every level you take for the talents reduces your overall casting power. I'd cut progression from 3rd and 7th to make it a 1/2 caster progression and adjust the talent progression to fill those holes. So you could get some good talents or increase your spellcasting to 7/10.
So what about mine?
Well yours falls short at being a melee AA on a few levels really. It's not bad but not there yet either
1: The Requirements should be the same more same BAB, casting level and 3 weapon or attack feats so I would go
Base Attack Bonus: +6.
Feats: Weapon Focus (any Melee), Weapon Specialization (any Meele), Arcane strike or vital strike
Spells: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells.
2: He would not gain Diverse Training training as the AA does not and he is not an EK, that takes away from the EK something a it should not do. I would not use spell critical for the same reason.
I would replace spell critical with a "death rune" activated as an immediate or swift action. Placed upon any weapon you have and works just like the arrow of death
so reworked it would look like so
Requirements
Base Attack Bonus: +6.
Feats: Weapon Focus (any Melee), Weapon Specialization (any Meele), Arcane strike or vital strike
Spells: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells.
Table: Arcane Fighter
Lvl Base Attack Bonus Fort Save Ref Save Will Save Special Spells per Day
1st +1 +1 +0 +1 Enhance Weapon, +1 level existing class
2nd +2 +1 +1 +1 Imbue Weapon —
3rd +3 +2 +1 +2 +1 level existing class
4th +4 +2 +1 +2 Guided Attack +1 level existing class
5th +5 +3 +2 +3 +1 level existing class
6th +6 +3 +2 +3 Phase Attack —
7th +7 +4 +2 +4 +1 level existing class
8th +8 +4 +3 +4 Whirlwind Strike +1 level existing class
9th +9 +5 +3 +5 +1 level existing class
10th +10 +5 +3 +5 Death rune —
|
I threw it down as an example. I made no claim as to balance until you reacted completely negatively. If you had said 'a good idea, but I would pare down the talents and caster progression to match core' I wouldn't have felt compelled to argue. Yes, I should have been a better man, but you know how I love to argue.
I don't think it works that way. :)
If I had an alternate class that got Full BaB and Armor with Cleric Spellcasting and Druid Wild Shape, on a forum argueing if Clerics are already overpowered and what a Godzilla means to people, it would need to be clarified that this was a home game balanced issue or expect people to (rightfully) have issues.
This is definitive example why Gish is a "bad word" among so many gamers, though.
Yeah but ya cherrypicked another PRC for those goodies. Making one PRC obsolete is not a good thing. Both the arcane PRC's have an enety of at lest level 8. So I would keep it he same entry level as the AA as it's really just a melee verson
|
|
My thoughts on the extra goodies is that melee combat is more risky than ranged, so a melee AA should actually have a bit of an edge over the ranged AA.
I just wanted to point out that melee also has more benefits over ranged, so they really should balance out.
The fact that it is a "caster" in question really shouldn't enter into th issue at all, (leaves room for abuse later on).
|
|
If I had an alternate class that got Full BaB and Armor with Cleric Spellcasting and Druid Wild Shape, on a forum argueing if Clerics are already overpowered and what a Godzilla means to people, it would need to be clarified that this was a home game balanced issue or expect people to (rightfully) have issues.
Bravo, I'm laughing too hard at that hyperbole to even form an answer. You win. :)
And the idea IS sort of to replace the EK.
And that is why it fails. You have made the Super must have PRC. You have not made a Melee AA you robbed both the AA and the EK to make a class that's as good or better then both but at a lower level.
|
Well, I for one like our arcane spellcaster entry. Now, taken out of its context, yes, it is a bit "overpowered" when used with PfRPG RAW. But, in context of the campaign TOZ and I play in, it is perfectly balanced.
Our houserules and mods are based on what Kirth, Jess, myself and a few vocal other who posted during the Beta playtest wished to see in the final rules, that is, class parity to a degree, more flexibility inside of base classes to achieve builds that suited concepts, and meaningful PrCs without having a zillion of them, many of which were redundant to some degree or another.
By taking class features and making them feats or talents, we've eliminated the need to pour through every splat known to man to build effective non-casters. And, with the changed we've made to how casting in combat works, wizards and clerics have a somewhat harder time just hitting the "win" button, frankly.
Pathfinder, RAW, suffers (admittedly to a lesser degree, but it's still there) from a lot of the same problems 3.5 did. We just sought to correct those deficiencies, and I think we did a good job.
Of course, without a seriously critical look at how it plays with the base classes, and "magically stabby" class is probably going to have the same issues as our Arcane Warrior, considering the apparent expectations of the people who champion the concept.
|
|
Bravo, I'm laughing too hard at that hyperbole to even form an answer. You win. :)
Don't get me wrong, I think it is interesting. And I do like that it seriously cuts down on the need for specific prestige classes/base classes by filling many possible concepts, but it also makes me wonder what your games are like that this would be fairly balanced?
What types of houserules, and what other classes you have issues with,
(or would by the normal rules)?
If ya go back to the page he posted And click on"game initiative" at the top, all the changes should be there. They are extensive.
|
|
Bravo, I'm laughing too hard at that hyperbole to even form an answer. You win. :)Don't get me wrong, I think it is interesting. And I do like that it seriously cuts down on the need for specific prestige classes/base classes by filling many possible concepts, but it also makes me wonder what your games are like that this would be fairly balanced?
What types of houserules, and what other classes you have issues with,
(or would by the normal rules)?
Beckett, you were as active as Kirth, Jess, TOz and I during the playtest, so, if you recall a lot of what we were advocating for in the rules changes, pretty much that is what went into our houserules, in one form or another.
|
|
What types of houserules, and what other classes you have issues with,
(or would by the normal rules)?
You can find my houserules in this section and Kirth's houserules in this section. Most of mine are just minor tweaks from Kirth's since I use houseruled 3.5 in my game and Kirth uses houseruled PF in his.
To Clarify:
Gish means a spellcasting warrior.
"Optimized Gish" is a target build of 16 BAB to get 4 attacks, and access to 9th level spells by 20th level.
A Bard is a gish with music effects tacked on. His spell list is optimized for social/support duties, however. He gets more combat buffs from bardsong.
A cleric is a Divine Gish (a Gosh)...15 BAB and full spellcasting. With much extra stuff on the side.
A druid is a Gosh...15 BAB, Full spellcasting, wildshaping,summon friends...oh, yeah.
A Duskblade is a well made Arcane Gish. Full BAB, restricted spellcasting, cast in armor, basically subbing spellcasting for feats and not overpowered.
The Eldritch Knight is a PrC designed to give spellcasters some taste of Gishiness.
The Psychic Warrior is almost your perfect Gish. 15 BAB, full armor, cast in armor, tight list consisting mostly of melee buffs.
The Arcane Archer is a PrC Gish class for (guess?) archers!
=======
Constructing a sole f/mu Gish class would be difficult because of different expectations. Look at the Duskblade and Psychic Warrior...both are almost perfect Gish examples. Duskblade is focused on direct damage spells, Gish by melee buffs. They differ in BAB, and their flavor is completely different.
The Bard is the same way. His spell list gives an entirely different flavor to his Gishiness. It doesn't make him less a Gish, it makes him less a Gish then a Gish-lover wants.
Due to AD@D, expectations of Gishes are thrown out of porportion, and munchkins want to have their Fighter Cake and eat their Arcane godliness, too. It's not gonna happen.
Enjoy!
==Aelryinth
To Clarify:
Gish means a spellcasting warrior.
"Optimized Gish" is a target build of 16 BAB to get 4 attacks, and access to 9th level spells by 20th level.
A Bard is a gish with music effects tacked on. His spell list is optimized for social/support duties, however. He gets more combat buffs from bardsong.
A cleric is a Divine Gish (a Gosh)...15 BAB and full spellcasting. With much extra stuff on the side.
A druid is a Gosh...15 BAB, Full spellcasting, wildshaping,summon friends...oh, yeah.
A Duskblade is a well made Arcane Gish. Full BAB, restricted spellcasting, cast in armor, basically subbing spellcasting for feats and not overpowered.
The Eldritch Knight is a PrC designed to give spellcasters some taste of Gishiness.
The Psychic Warrior is almost your perfect Gish. 15 BAB, full armor, cast in armor, tight list consisting mostly of melee buffs.
The Arcane Archer is a PrC Gish class for (guess?) archers!
=======
Constructing a sole f/mu Gish class would be difficult because of different expectations. Look at the Duskblade and Psychic Warrior...both are almost perfect Gish examples. Duskblade is focused on direct damage spells, Gish by melee buffs. They differ in BAB, and their flavor is completely different.The Bard is the same way. His spell list gives an entirely different flavor to his Gishiness. It doesn't make him less a Gish, it makes him less a Gish then a Gish-lover wants.
Due to AD@D, expectations of Gishes are thrown out of porportion, and munchkins want to have their Fighter Cake and eat their Arcane godliness, too. It's not gonna happen.
Enjoy!
==Aelryinth
Sorry, but divine casters can not be a gish, as casting spells in armor is nothing to them. Wouldn't that make a paladin a gosh as well?
Sorry but the term is meant to identify something significant not a status quo.
However I would have to agree with you that the duskblade is a very balanced class. Yeah they might be able to do some incredible stuff, but it is only a few times per day, where a fighter can do their abilities all day long.
paladins and rangers aren't considered gishes because they are Minor spellcasters (at best), where the spells are at a best a third tier ability relative to BAB and other class abilities. For a gish, fighting adn spellcasting are both primary things they could reasonably do almost every round, if desired.
Old f/mu's were elves who had no problem casting in armor. the armor issue is a hand waver that can be gotten aruond with feats, PrC's, class abilties, armor enhancements, or just ditching armor for bracers or a Mage Armor cast. So, a Gosh just gets something for free an Arcanist might have to pay for. Note that Psy Warriors got no problems being a Gish in heavy armor, either.
==Aelryinth
wow could we not use Gosh as it sounds dumber then the other word.
Besides someone not useing arcane spells can not fit the arcane fighter role.
Gish = Spellcasting warrior. Spellcasting can be reflavored as Psychic, as well, or Arcanum, or Binding, etc etc etc. Arcane is the default assumption.
A Gosh are default base classes, and one reason why many people consider clerics and druids overpowered.
===Aelryinth
Gosh is a replacement curse word not a class
And here I thought it was an involuntary ejaculation of admiration when people saw me coming. <sniff>
I am pretty sure he made it up. As the word Gosh"Like in Gosh darn-it" is a euphemism for God and he used it for none arcane caster warroirs such as the cleric and druid.
It is pretty silly sounding. At lest the other word has a in game history even if most folks use it incorrectly now days.
Those should be Drushes and Cleshes.
|
|
Those should be Drushes and Cleshes.
Ha ha ha. . . That, on the oher hand, actually kind of rocks.
Problems solved. Anytime henceforth that someone means a Githyanki Fighter/Wizard, they say Gish.
Anytime they mean any of the following
*16 BaB/9 Arcane caster levels
* A guy that stabs magically or whatever
* a class that is obviously overpowered regardless of how much you think your concept is cool arcanewarriory
* a base or prestige class that tries to blend arcane casting with warrior talents and is not actually a Githyanki
is now to be called a Wizesh. (short for either "I can't spell Wise" or "I wish I where a real Wizard")
:)
Yeah, most everything has or is being rebuilt. I think 'off the charts' is perhaps a little unwarranted tho. It can't do all that much more than a regular AA or EK. Still limited by action economy.
HD was telling me about that site the other day and sent me a link. It's definitely on my 'spending some lengthy time checking out' to do list. :D
A Duskblade is a well made Arcane Gish. Full BAB, restricted spellcasting, cast in armor, basically subbing spellcasting for feats and not overpowered.
I have to disagree with this. The duskblade had full BAB and superior (i.e., polar ray and total spell slots to name a couple issues; the "only 5th level spells" is misleading) arcane casting to a bard. In other words, it was better at fighting AND spellcasting than a bard. Even with divine casting, the two core full BAB casting classes (paladin, ranger) had much more limited spell progression, so the duskblade could fight as well as a paladin or ranger AND cast better. The duskblade, in other words is overpowered, compared to the core base classes.
I have stated before that there are three balanced ways to make an "arcane warrior" character:
1) A character that's primarily a caster, with better fighting ability. This character will have full (or near full) spellcasting progression (8th-9th level spells) and end up with BAB of +12-16. The current rules cover this with the arcane archer and eldritch knight (and, to a lesser extent, dragon disciple). The arcane trickster could possibly be considered, by stretching the point slightly (+11 BAB, 8th level spells for a sor/wiz 6/rog 4/AT 10).
2) A character that can fight and cast, but less able at each than the pure warrior or mage. Spellcasting progression will be limited to 5th-7th level spells and BAB will range from +15-19 (there will be trade-offs between spell progression and BAB, better spell progression means lower BAB and vice versa). The bard can fill this role, possibly with the eldritch knight PrC (brd 9/ftr 1/EK 10 gives +17 BAB and only loses two levels of spell progression, while a brd 8/ftr 2/EK 10 has +18 BAB and loses three levels of spell progression), along with some arcane archer and dragon disciple "builds." A variant class based on the "bard chassis" that focused on Evocation instead of Enchantment and had some different class abilities would probably help quiet some of the outcry; the alchemist and the summoner from the APG playtest are examples that focus on Transmutation and Conjuration effects, respectively (although the alchemist doesn't cast spells as such).
3) A character that's primarily a warrior, with minor casting ability. Spellcasting progression will be limited to 4th level spells and the character will have full BAB. This option was attempted with the 3.5 hexblade, but has otherwise not received much attention. A variant class based on the "PF paladin chassis," channeling arcane instead of divine power (maybe based around the elements?), might be a good option.
A character that goes beyond any of those three options (especially full BAB with better spell progression than a paladin or ranger) is unbalanced when compared to the core classes. Period.
Unless you consider the paladin/ranger/bard to actually be underpowered, especially past level 6. Being more powerful in this case is not a guarantee of being overpowered, and your stance impresses that further debate over it (with you at least) will provide neither party with satisfaction.
I'm further convinced of our intractable disagreements if you honestly believe that the duskblade is a full caster in practice because of polar ray.
Yeah, the Bard has a MUCH more flexible and versatile potential spell list, while the Duskblade's is pretty focused and tight. They both get full caster level, but most of the Duskblade's spells are Touch Attack stuff. The Duskblade is balanced because of the restricted spell list.
As for Polar Ray, its worth noting that Scorching Ray, maximized, will do more dmg then a level 20 Polar Ray by a couple points, and you can purchase efficient metamagic for it.
THe potential power of Haste probably eclipses any direct damage effect out there, after all. And then the Bard has healing spells, stat buffs, charm effects, morale boosters, etc, even direct damage with some of the Paizo additions. Stack all that with the musical combat buffs, and Bards do pretty darn well as Gishes.
==Aelryinth
Those should be Drushes and Cleshes.Ha ha ha. . . That, on the oher hand, actually kind of rocks.
Problems solved. Anytime henceforth that someone means a Githyanki Fighter/Wizard, they say Gish.
Anytime they mean any of the following
*16 BaB/9 Arcane caster levels
* A guy that stabs magically or whatever
* a class that is obviously overpowered regardless of how much you think your concept is cool arcanewarriory
* a base or prestige class that tries to blend arcane casting with warrior talents and is not actually a Githyanki
is now to be called a Wizesh. (short for either "I can't spell Wise" or "I wish I where a real Wizard")
:)
Pronounced "Wize-Ash" of course, with the 'h' sound downplayed.
==Aelryinth
bard
...Is not comparable to a Duskblade because while a Duskblade was meant to be a fighter/wizard, the Bard was meant to be a wizard/rogue. You're comparing a class that's supposed to cast spells, wade into combat and magically smack things, and have few to no skills, with a class that has a large number of skills and harries enemies or casts enchantment spells.
Seriously, Duskblade wasn't overpowered. Period. It flat out wasn't. If anything, it was one of the most balanced classes in D&D.
Also, Polar Ray isn't half as awesome and almighty as you make it out to be, and bards by far have the better spell choice. You're putting a bizarre amount of importance in just dealing damage, while the bard can throw down insta-kills, debuffs, or buffs.
|
|
A character that goes beyond any of those three options (especially full BAB with better spell progression than a paladin or ranger) is unbalanced when compared to the core classes. Period.
Unless their spell list consists of things like bless, doom, acid splash, knock, and other lower power spells. BAB and progression mean little compared to spell list. And since you think polar ray is a good 9th level spell (or whatever Duskblade equivalent) it's obvious that we will not come to an agreement.
Unless you consider the paladin/ranger/bard to actually be underpowered, especially past level 6. Being more powerful in this case is not a guarantee of being overpowered, and your stance impresses that further debate over it (with you at least) will provide neither party with satisfaction.
I'm further convinced of our intractable disagreements if you honestly believe that the duskblade is a full caster in practice because of polar ray.
"The duskblade had full BAB and superior (i.e., polar ray and total spell slots to name a couple issues; the "only 5th level spells" is misleading) arcane casting to a bard" I never said the duskblade was a full caster.
"The duskblade, in other words is overpowered, compared to the core base classes." The key words are compared to the core base classes. We can debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, whether some core base classes are "underpowered" or not, but it doesn't change the fact that the duskblade is unbalanced when compared to the core rules.
New classes should be balanced with the core rules or you end up with the "splatbook arms race" that 3.5 devolved into. Your opinion that paladins, rangers, and bards are "underpowered" impresses me no more than my opinion that new classes should be balanced against core classes impresses you. So be it.
As for Polar Ray, its worth noting that Scorching Ray, maximized, will do more dmg then a level 20 Polar Ray by a couple points, and you can purchase efficient metamagic for it.
Two words: Sudden Maximize. Three words: metamagic rod (maximize).
And before anyone starts with "that Sudden Maximize isn't in PHB II," very few groups that use(d) PHB II restrict(ed) access to Complete Arcane. The duskblade class, by itself, could only channel touch spells, which is bad enough with Arcane Channel (full attack) + vampiric touch (+6d6 damage or more on every hit in a full attack, without needing to flank or otherwise set it up). However, a duskblade 13/spellsword* 7 with Practiced Spellcaster, Power Attack, and Sudden Maximize (taken twice) is a different story (+20 BAB, spell progression as a 17th level duskblade, CL 20): Quick Cast true strike, Channel Spell Sudden Maximized polar ray, Power Attack at -20 with a two-handed spell storing weapon containing a vampiric touch = weapon damage +40 Power Attack +120 cold +10d6 vampiric touch. Granted, this can only be done twice per day, but that's usually enough; besides, the character can still Channel Spell twice more, can Arcane Channel (full attack) with touch spells, and has 8 1st level spells, 9 2nd level spells, 6 3rd level spells, 4 4th level spells, plus those from high Int.
*- Complete Warrior is not usually restricted, either.
This is why new classes should be balanced against core ones. It saves you from unintended consequences when combining it with other new classes/rules.
bard...Is not comparable to a Duskblade because while a Duskblade was meant to be a fighter/wizard, the Bard was meant to be a wizard/rogue. You're comparing a class that's supposed to cast spells, wade into combat and magically smack things, and have few to no skills, with a class that has a large number of skills and harries enemies or casts enchantment spells.
Seriously, Duskblade wasn't overpowered. Period. It flat out wasn't. If anything, it was one of the most balanced classes in D&D.
Also, Polar Ray isn't half as awesome and almighty as you make it out to be, and bards by far have the better spell choice. You're putting a bizarre amount of importance in just dealing damage, while the bard can throw down insta-kills, debuffs, or buffs.
The duskblade is a full BAB class that's a better arcane caster than the core 3/4 BAB arcane caster class. That's overpowered, compared to core. Balanced, compared to core, would be an equal caster to the paladin or ranger.
Polar ray is an 8th level sorcerer/wizard spell. So is Bigby's clenched fist. For a duskblade they're 5th level spells. Show me one core class that gets a three spell level adjustment from the baseline cleric/druid/sorcerer/wizard version. Note I'm not arguing that damage spells are good (they aren't really at higher levels), but that the duskblade is getting bigger breaks than any core class.
Polar Ray can barely be argued to be a 2nd level spell for what it does (damage caps are more built into spell level than the spell if you want to argue that), so using that as an example of a big break than another core class is...I'm at a loss here as to the right word, dag nab it...
In order for a class to be unbalanced/overpowered compared to the core classes, then it needs to be more powerful than all of the core classes, because you're comparing it to all of them at once. The duskblade is certainly not more powerful than a wizard or a druid. Now, feel free to shift your goal post and declare the duskblade as overpowered when compared to only the bard/paladin/ranger.
|
|
Oh my god...there is somebody who thinks that using a bunch of splat book stuff and doing 160+10d6 damage at level 20 is overpowered?!? If you think so, then the fighter is even MORE over powered as I can make an ubercharger do several thousand damage in a round. Oh and if I do a pounce barbarian, I can make that tens of thousands of damage. Oh and a level 20 wizard can time stop, reverse gravity and prismatic wall which is WAY nastier then just that piddly damage...and that´s just core rules.
I love it when people talk about the "splatbook arms race"
Like nothing in Core was ever overpowered.
Guys, splatbooks didn't bring about Natural Spell or wizard dominance. All splatbooks did was give non-casters a chance to try and catch up.
You keep saying "compared to Core," except "core" wasn't balanced. At all. At. All. Core fighter was terrible. Core barbarian was terrible. Core monk was terrible. In fact, the only core classes that weren't flat out terrible or horribly powerful were bard and rogue, and even they needed help from splats. Quite frankly, the less things are balanced compared to core, the better.
The duskblade is a full BAB class that's a better arcane caster than the core 3/4 BAB arcane caster class. That's overpowered, compared to core. Balanced, compared to core, would be an equal caster to the paladin or ranger.Polar Ray and Disintegrate compared to 3.5 Irresistible Dance, Mass Charm Monster, and Mass Suggestion. Hm.
There's really no arguing with DCP's moon logic. I suggest you don't bother.
Because the duskblade never had any SoD/SoS spells like enervation, phantasmal killer, or hold monster, right? Oh, wait..
To everyone excusing their power-mongering with "core classes (except for cleric, druid, wizard)" sucked," I ask the following: What does the duskblade give up, compared to the bard, for that full BAB that the bard doesn't get? Why does the duskblade gain so many spell slots (44 at 20th level, vs. 24 for the bard; 60 vs. 28 including 0-level spells)? Why is a full BAB class given better arcane spell progression than the paladin and ranger get with divine spells?
And yes, I'm considering balance against the core. It is the baseline. Paizo has done a decent job of narrowing the gaps between the core classes, without designing a completely new system. So again, why the pushback on 2) and 3) in my eariler post? 3/4 BAB and bard-like spell progression OR full BAB with paladin/ranger-like spell progression. Just because you think it's "weak" doesn't mean it's so.
Skills and depending on how one rates them from the two classes class features and spell list.I ask the following: What does the duskblade give up, compared to the bard, for that full BAB that the bard doesn't get? Why does the duskblade gain so many spell slots (44 at 20th level, vs. 24 for the bard; 50 [fixed typo] vs. 28 including 0-level spells)? Why is a full BAB class given better arcane spell progression than the paladin and ranger get with divine spells?
And yes, I'm considering balance against the core. It is the baseline. Paizo has done a decent job of narrowing the gaps between the core classes, without designing a completely new system. So again, why the pushback on 2) and 3) in my eariler post? 3/4 BAB and bard-like spell progression OR full BAB with paladin/ranger-like spell progression. Just because you think it's "weak" doesn't mean it's so.
Skills: Int-based spellcasting vs. Cha-based spellcasting and what skills are needed for a duskblade vs. bard? How do you rate the class features (Armored Mage, Combat Casting, Arcane Channeling, Quick Cast, and Spell Power vs. Bardic Knowledge and Bardic Music)?
Because it channels spells through attacks or blasts with them which is less efficient.
Bigby's tripping hand, cause fear, color spray, ray of enfeeblement, resist energy, swift expeditious retreat, true strike, animalistic power, bear's endurance, bull's strength, cat's grace, dimension hop, see invisibility, spider climb, stretch weapon, sure strike, swift fly, swift invisibility, crown of might, crown of protection, energy aegis, greater magic weapon, halt, protection from energy, ray of exhaustion, regroup, dimension door, enervation, phantasmal killer, hold monster...
Since the duskblade has no buff, disabling, or utility spells, I guess all the duskblade can do is use "less efficient" attacks channeling chill touch, shocking grasp, ghoul touch, touch of idiocy, dispelling touch, and vampiric touch through a weapon attack (with no AoO) after casting blade of blood/energy surge spells (swift action) or "blast" with burning hands, Kelgore's fire bolt, Bigby's striking fist, Melf's acid arrow, scorching ray, doom scarabs, channeled pyroburst, shout, Bigby's clenched fist, chain lightning, polar ray...
I assume you mean number of spells rather then highest numerical level of spell, then because it channels them through attacks or blasts with them which is less efficient
So, because the duskblade has direct damage spells and ways to boost weapon damage in addition to various buff, disabling, and utility spells, they need/deserve more spell slots (almost twice as many!) than a bard with the Arcane Strike feat? Yes, the bard is better at buffs (heroism, Inspire Greatness), but not that much better.
In any case why not question why the ranger and paladin got better spell progression then the fighter or the druid and cleric better then the bard or monk.
Paladin/ranger vs. fighter: feats. Druid/cleric vs. bard: divine vs. arcane. Monk: don't get me started on how WotC messed them up (they should have 6 + Int mod skills to start with).
If you are going to talk about balance vs core classes first it should probably be shown that core is completely balanced among all classes.
Nice attempt to shift the argument from compatibility with core ("it's broken so we need to break it worse") to an argument on "complete balance." Again, why does a duskblade need to be so much better than the core "hybrid" classes (bard, paladin, ranger)?
Nice attempt to shift the argument from compatibility with core ("it's broken so we need to break it worse") to an argument to "complete balance." Again, why does a duskblade need to be so much better than the core "hybrid" classes (bard, paladin, ranger)?
So the Duskblade is less powerful than a fighter or barbarian at low levels, and less powerful than a wizard at high levels. It's somewhere in the pocket of well balanced.
Forget about old arcane strike, if you're going to say "hey what about x from book y" we can play that game all damn day and in the end lots of fighter feats break the game just as much as the Duskblade does. Let's just compare the Duskblade as written in PH2, along with the specific new spells allowed to that class (i.e. blade of blood or whatever) to other core classes without splatbooks.
Before Duskblade gets channel spell (level 3) any other warrior class and some other classes like rogue, as well as all casters will out damage and out usefulness him (if that's a proper term).
He gets channel spell, and a limited (albeit high) number of times per day he can match and potentially outshine (with lucky dice) the fighter/barbarian.
I'll be the first to admit the Duskblade is more powerful as written than a 3.5 fighter, but the 3.5 fighter was a notoriously weak class. As you correctly postulate the more fair thing to compare it to is hybrid classes, specifically paladin, ranger, and bard. Paladin in 3.5 was still a pathetically weak class and can be outdone by a hamster with rabies so forget that. Compared to a ranger he gets low skills, poor skill selection, lack of great abilities like hide in plain sight evasion and an animal companion. In a situation where the ranger shines like fighting his favored enemy the ranger and DB are probably on about equal ground, so yeah the DB is barely more powerful than the ranger IN COMBAT. Outside the ranger wins hands down. Bard is an unfair comparison, since bard is again meant to be a rogue-like caster. Bard gets bardic music which is pretty powerful, bardic knowledge, abilities like fascinate and suggestion, inspire courage, healing spells. For combat I'd say DB again, but that's a no brainer as Bard is a support class. For combat utility I'd still choose bard, but raw damage I'd say Duskblade.
Nonetheless, compared to any full casters the duskblade is a pathetic red-headed stepchild.
Remember, only Touch spells not Rays can be cast through Arcane Channelling. Duskblade also has a pretty limited selection of spells known, 20 all told compared to a bard's 34 +cantrips.
If I were to revamp the duskblade for PF I would tweak a thing here or there, but not a whole lot. Here's what I'd do:
Change spell progression to mirror Bard. Remove SoD/SoS spells from the class list except those that require attack rolls (like Enervation).
Change the ability to Quick Cast to restrict itself to buffs. Throw up a quick haste for the party before combat? Sure. Free Enervation every round? No way.
Take away proficiency with heavy armor.
Add some thematically appropriate utility spells to their spell list. Mount for example or Phantom Steed, as well as Arcane Sight and Dispel Magic.
Give him cantrips.
A Duskblade is a well made Arcane Gish. Full BAB, restricted spellcasting, cast in armor, basically subbing spellcasting for feats and not overpowered.I have to disagree with this. The duskblade had full BAB and superior (i.e., polar ray and total spell slots to name a couple issues; the "only 5th level spells" is misleading) arcane casting to a bard. In other words, it was better at fighting AND spellcasting than a bard.
Sorry and your point is???? Any class should be better than a bard at doing something.
A bard is a It would be pathetic if a duskblade wasn't better at casting and fighting, as the bard ALSO had skills, party buffing, and knowledge abilities.
The reason I have seen people ban DB's are that they really do outshine every other melee class.
The reason this is dumb is because it's hilariously easy to outshine the core melee classes.
As for EVERY other melee class, I disagree. Tome of Battle classes were a match for the Duskblade, and largely for the same reason - they could do more then just charge and full attack. And many core classes could be more damage dealing then the Duskblade depending on their build, ie the uberchargers.
Duskblades were considered "overpowered" because people put way too much emphasis on damage and tried comparing everything to the pathetically weak core fighter. They see "He does more damage then the fighter, OP!" The problem is, under this view, almost everything is overpowered.