Post/Author/DateTime	Post
wilbur07 12-27-07, 08:21 PM	At 13th level A Duskblade can deliver a touch spell with a full round attack, the spell affecting each target the Duskblade hits in that round. My question is simple; does this mean that a 13th level DB with Shocking Grasp can deliver 4 attacks on one target doing an extra 20d6 electricity damage to that one target or must he or she spread the attacks amongst different targets doing 5d6 electricity damage with each blow? Similarly, does Vampiric Touch do up to 40d6 damage to one target at 20th level with four attacks that hit?
vorpo 12-27-07, 08:38 PM	20d6 assuming all 4 attacks land.
Marcus Majarra 12-28-07, 06:13 AM	20d6 assuming all 4 attacks land. This is incorrect. From the 3.5 FAQ: At 13th level, the duskblade’s arcane channeling class feature (Player’s Handbook II, 20) says “you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round.” If you hit the same creature more than once during the full attack action, does the spell affect it each time you hit? No. The spell affects each target only once.
runestar 12-28-07, 08:10 AM	So it means that if you have 4 attacks, you must spread out those attacks amongst 4 different foes to get the full benefit...:confused:
WackyOne 12-28-07, 08:41 AM	To milk the spell for all it's worth, yes, you'll need to spread the attacks among more enemies. Think about a duskblade that got access (via a PrC or something) to a save-or-die touch spell, or something equally deadly like shivering touch. Add in the full two weapon fighting feat tree... 7 saves-or-die in a round, against one target. It would be harsh.
UAMDB 12-28-07, 09:01 AM	Thats why Duskblades should take Whirlwind Attack. It can get nasty.
runestar 12-28-07, 09:04 AM	Thats why Duskblades should take Whirlwind Attack. It can get nasty. It is not cheap though, and stuff like temp hp vampiric touch still won't stack. Seems like more effort than it is worth.
UAMDB 12-28-07, 09:17 AM	You are correct that it is not cheap. But it can be effective when you can quick cast reach Weapon on a spiked chain, or other weapon and attack everything within two squares. Of course if you are not fighting hoards and only one monster at a time, it is not effective at all. As to Vampiric Touch not stacking, I am not sure. I would have to read up on both the spell, and "stacking" when I get home. Not wanting to turn this into a debate....Yet :)
DarkRhystar 12-28-07, 09:56 AM	You are correct that it is not cheap. But it can be effective when you can quick cast reach Weapon on a spiked chain, or other weapon and attack everything within two squares. Better to have one dead monster and two uninjured ones than 3 injured monsters in my opinion. The Duskblade should have an upgrade to Arcane Channeling later that allows multiple hits against a single monster to use the spell channeled. It would also go a little bit toward knocking out the belief that the Duskblade is a 13 level class.
UAMDB 12-28-07, 10:22 AM	I agree, the problem is that it would have to be either a level 20 ability or an Epic ability. As is you are looking at a 1st level spell doing 20d6 provided everything hit with no save allowed, also doing 4dx from weapon damage. Now while is not really a whole lot at 20th level, it can get ugly pretty fast.
DarkRhystar 12-28-07, 10:29 AM	I agree, the problem is that it would have to be either a level 20 ability or an Epic ability. As is you are looking at a 1st level spell doing 20d6 provided everything hit with no save allowed, also doing 4dx from weapon damage. Now while is not really a whole lot at 20th level, it can get ugly pretty fast. No more ugly than a Rogue and Sneak Attack.
GawainBS 12-28-07, 11:13 AM	No more ugly than a Rogue and Sneak Attack. Except that there's a fair load of things immune to criticals and thus Sneak Attack, combined with the higher BAB of the Duskblade.
Marcus Majarra 12-28-07, 11:58 AM	The efficiency problem lies not with the ability, but with the lack of interesting touch spells to channel. I am inclined, however, to have the temporary hp gained from vampiric touch to stack on account of casting the spell only once.
Sinfire Titan 12-28-07, 12:30 PM	This is incorrect. From the 3.5 FAQ: How odd that they didn't include this is the Errata. Who put that in the FAQ, the Sage? Because text says otherwise. It makes no sense for a target to only be affected once per spell.
DarkRhystar 12-28-07, 12:51 PM	Except that there's a fair load of things immune to criticals and thus Sneak Attack, combined with the higher BAB of the Duskblade. Oh come on now, let's not turn this into a Rogue vs Duskblade discussion. Controversy aside, you know that Wands of ABC-strike exist (controversy aside). A full attack on an enemy with Arcane Channeling isn't a show-stopper.
LoneFlame 12-28-07, 01:22 PM	How odd that they didn't include this is the Errata. Who put that in the FAQ, the Sage? Because text says otherwise. It makes no sense for a target to only be affected once per spell. Often the Sage knows his stuff, but every now and then, he's wrong(no one's perfect). Since nothing in the PHB2 or it's Errata even vaguely hints that you can only hit one person once the Full Round Arcane Channeling, obviously you can do it.
Marcus Majarra 12-28-07, 03:26 PM	Actually, nothing in the PHB2 or Errata states that a target can be affected by the spell more than once. You're still casting the spell only once, so it stands to reason that no single target could be affected by the spell more than once. In fact, the PHB2 states that the spell affects each target you hit in combat, not that every hit channels the effects of the spell. It's basically turning a single-target touch spell into a multiple-target touch spell.
DarkRhystar 12-28-07, 03:29 PM	Actually, nothing in the PHB2 or Errata states that a target can be affected by the spell more than once. You're still casting the spell only once, so it stands to reason that no single target could be affected by the spell more than once. In fact, the PHB2 states that the spell affects each target you hit in combat, not that every hit channels the effects of the spell. It's basically turning a single-target touch spell into a multiple-target touch spell. The question was answered by custserv IIRC that it only affects each target once. I'd prefer it otherwise myself...
Cold Napalm 12-28-07, 03:51 PM	I hate how they keep sticking things in the FAQ which is so rotted full of wrong things to be nigh useless. If it's suppose to be an offical fix, it should go in an errata, not some faq anyways. Oh and ask the cust serv the question 10 times and you'll get 11 different answers so they are fairly useless as well. The only thing that honestly matter is the book and the errata. Since the book says that spell effects each target hit in the round however, the DM could rule either way (each use of arcane channel applies one spell to each target hit in the round...or each use of arcane channel applies to each target hit that round). By RAW anyways. However, the wording is vaguely in favor of one each target...but worded in an utterly useless manner as the writers are so want to do every so often. If you must include the faq, then it is clearly one per target. So as much as I hate acknowelding the FAQ, I would say I'd go with the FAQ in this case.
DarkRhystar 12-28-07, 03:56 PM	However, the wording is vaguely in favor of one each target...but worded in an utterly useless manner as the writers are so want to do every so often. Don't be too harsh on the writers. Writing mechanics for D&D and for games like MtG is very much akin to writing legal documents. It's very challenging to do so in a way that can't be misinterpreted or loop-holed. Plus hindsight is 20/20. Odds are the writer knew exactly what he wanted and probably worded it so that he could understand it... sadly that understanding wasn't fully conveyed. Likely a case of reading what he wanted versus what he wrote.
Hsien 12-28-07, 03:57 PM	The efficiency problem lies not with the ability, but with the lack of interesting touch spells to channel. I am inclined, however, to have the temporary hp gained from vampiric touch to stack on account of casting the spell only once. My group houseruled that it could stack up to the max of the spell, iirc. Been awhile since we had a Duskblade in party. So in case of a low roll for the vampiric touch, another hit could boost it up; limited to the spells max. This also helped when attacking people that had spells like fireshield up, so temp hp could be recovered by hitting other people. i.e. hit X gain temp hp hit Y that has fireshield, take fs damage and gain temp hp from VTouch hit Z and if still below VTouch max Temp HP, gain additional temp HP
Cold Napalm 12-28-07, 04:12 PM	Don't be too harsh on the writers. Writing mechanics for D&D and for games like MtG is very much akin to writing legal documents. It's very challenging to do so in a way that can't be misinterpreted or loop-holed. Plus hindsight is 20/20. Odds are the writer knew exactly what he wanted and probably worded it so that he could understand it... sadly that understanding wasn't fully conveyed. Likely a case of reading what he wanted versus what he wrote. Except that the MtG people are infinately better at it then the D&D people. I know what it takes, and I know it's hard, but this is what they are getting paid to do. I have no idea how much they are getting paid, but they are getting paided none the less...and I expect them to be able to do the job if they took it on. No excuses. If the book was produced under slave labor and the writers had no choice but to take the job...then sure I'll accept that, but until the writes have a gun to their head, I just don't care. As far as hindsight goes...well that's what ERRATAS are for...not FAQ, not a post on the message board, but ERRATAS.
Cold Napalm 12-28-07, 04:16 PM	As for the vampiric touch stacking...well by RAW it does since it's one casting of vampiric touch. The spell doesn't care HOW you do the damage your doing, but ALL the damage you do via the spell is added via temporary HP...well to the limit of killing the critter anyways :P. Vampiric Touch Necromancy Level: Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Duration: Instantaneous/1 hour; see text Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes You must succeed on a melee touch attack. Your touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 10d6). You gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal. However, you can’t gain more than the subject’s current hit points +10, which is enough to kill the subject. The temporary hit points disappear 1 hour later.
LoneFlame 12-28-07, 04:25 PM	Actually, nothing in the PHB2 or Errata states that a target can be affected by the spell more than once. You're still casting the spell only once, so it stands to reason that no single target could be affected by the spell more than once. In fact, the PHB2 states that the spell affects each target you hit in combat, not that every hit channels the effects of the spell. It's basically turning a single-target touch spell into a multiple-target touch spell. It covers that you can hit multiple people with the spell, which some people would think you'd have to focus all of your attacks on one guy if they didn't have that in there. You can hit the same person multiple times during a full-round attack. The full-round version of Arcane Channeling lets you channel a spell into a full-round attack. The spell is not discharged after the initial attack & you can hit someone more than once in a full-round attack. Since it doesn't say(or even really hint) that you can't hit the same guy multiple times with the spell effect, you can hit the same guy multiple times with a full round arcane channeling, hitting him with the spell on each attack. With nothing in the books or Errata to contradict it, it is only logical that it work like that.
DarkRhystar 12-28-07, 05:27 PM	Except that the MtG people are infinately better at it then the D&D people. I know what it takes, and I know it's hard, but this is what they are getting paid to do. I have no idea how much they are getting paid, but they are getting paided none the less...and I expect them to be able to do the job if they took it on. No excuses. If the book was produced under slave labor and the writers had no choice but to take the job...then sure I'll accept that, but until the writes have a gun to their head, I just don't care. As far as hindsight goes...well that's what ERRATAS are for...not FAQ, not a post on the message board, but ERRATAS. And MtG has never had the equivalent to errata? ;) I agree with pretty much everything you said though... I'm just being difficult for the sake of it I guess.
Cold Napalm 12-28-07, 06:07 PM	And MtG has never had the equivalent to errata? ;) I agree with pretty much everything you said though... I'm just being difficult for the sake of it I guess. Yeah I do that too sometimes hehe :) .
LoneFlame 12-28-07, 11:12 PM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Magic the Gathering remake sets on a semi-regular basis?.
Sinfire Titan 12-29-07, 01:31 AM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Magic the Gathering remake sets on a semi-regular basis?. With clarifications added, but they change things up a bit. In all of the game, they reprinted roughly 5 sets, if you count the original 4 as a reprint of the 1st. Even the Core set changes with each release. They try to shy away from just remaking an entire set.
Marcus Majarra 12-29-07, 04:43 AM	Since it doesn't say(or even really hint) that you can't hit the same guy multiple times with the spell effect, you can hit the same guy multiple times with a full round arcane channeling, hitting him with the spell on each attack. With nothing in the books or Errata to contradict it, it is only logical that it work like that. You're putting words into the definition of the ability that do not exist in there. The 13th-level ability applies to any full attack. Invariably of how many people you may strike or how often you strike them, the spell affects each target hit in melee. Just because you strike someone more than once doesn't mean that someone suddenly becomes multiple targets. The fact that the FAQ confirms this says something about this issue. In fact, that's the very purpose of the FAQ. The rulebooks provide rules. Errata apply corrections to the rules. The FAQ clarifies any unclear rules. What you're proposing is no different from having a multiple target spell affect the same target once for each target allowed by the spell. This is obviously breaking the rules.
dman11235 12-29-07, 11:28 AM	I can't remember where it is, whether it is in the PHB (unlikely), the CArcane, or somewhere else, but there is a pasage that states that if you have a way of making a single target spell target multiple times, it only affects the same target once. I believe that it is also inferred in places such as chain spain. That's where the FAQ is getting their answer.
LoneFlame 12-29-07, 01:17 PM	What says that full-round Arcane Channeling acts like "do whatever mass," rather than making it something that can hit the same person more than once in a round like Scorching Ray, Chill Touch(assuming you cast it in the previous round), or Magic Missile? If you can find it in the text of the ability, let me know & explain it. At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell effects each target you hit in melee that round. Note the last part. That establishes that you still have the spell active after your turn is over, meaning that any attacks of opportunities you get off have that spell attached to it. Notice how it does not say that you can't hit the same guy multiple times, getting the full effect with each attack. Again, notice how it even goes as far as to ensure that extra attacks you somehow get off in the round, such as attacks of opportunity, are covered by the use of full-round Arcane Channeling. I know that as a DM, I probably wouldn't want it to be able to hit the same guy multiple times with full effect, but it clearly works that way.
Cold Napalm 12-29-07, 01:57 PM	And of course all this could have been avoid if they put what the stuck in the faq is the errata. They didn't. God I hate how dumb they are sometimes. Changing something that clearly says that you can full attack with each attack affecting the target into one per creature isn't a rules clarification it's an errata. This is why I ignore the bloody FAQ. They usually have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
LoneFlame 12-29-07, 02:47 PM	Just because it's in the FAQ does not make it a rule. The Sage isn't always right.
Cold Napalm 12-29-07, 02:51 PM	Just because it's in the FAQ does not make it a rule. The Sage isn't always right. Exactly...and what is in the FAQ is clearly a rules change and should have been in the errata, not a FAQ. If they stuck it in the errata, we would not even be having this discussion now.
LoneFlame 12-29-07, 04:25 PM	Since it's not in the Errata, it's not an official rules change.
Marcus Majarra 12-29-07, 06:23 PM	And since it's not an official rules change, it is merely a clarification for an existing, yet unclear rule. Thus, the FAQ wins. Notice how it does not say that you can't hit the same guy multiple times, getting the full effect with each attack. Again, notice how it even goes as far as to ensure that extra attacks you somehow get off in the round, such as attacks of opportunity, are covered by the use of full-round Arcane Channeling. It doesn't say that you can do what you're proposing either. What it says is that each target hit by you is affected by the spell. Hitting someone more than once doesn't make him more than one target. Furthermore, the three spells you provided are poor examples, since these spells are either completely irrelevant or are actually explicit in that their effects can stack on the same target: Scorching Ray: this is not a targetted spell. It creates three rays which you fire on creatures of your choice. Magic Missile: this spell explicitly states how multiple missiles can be aimed at one or more targets. Chill Touch: this spell explicitly states that each touch channels the negative energy. For your claims to be accurate, arcane channeling should read in a way that each attack delivers the effects of the spell. This is not the case.
LoneFlame 12-29-07, 11:55 PM	Sure, it doesn't specifically say it works how I says it does. It shouldn't have to. Anyone with any bloody common sense, should be able to put 2 & 2 together on this one. It shouldn't have to specifically that you can hit the same person multiple times with full effect. That is the only logical conclusion of hitting the same person multiple times with a spell being used in conjunction with a full attack. That is clearly how it's intended to work & that is clearly how it is implied that it works. Since apparently my last example wasn't good enough, here's a more closely related example... Eldritch Glaive. Normally, you can only hit one person once a round with Eldritch Blast(barring Quicken Spell-like ability). Anyone who's read the Warlock knows this. However, Eldritch Glaive, turns Eldritch Blast into a melee weapon with reach for 1 round. With Eldritch Glaive you can make multiple attacks to the same person, each dealing full damage to them(they're even melee touch attacks). Plus, Eldritch Glaive lasts until the start of the next round, you can make AOs with it. Essentially, the full round version of Arcane Channeling does about the same thing. Only, instead of conjuring a weapon of energy, it's more like a full-round Hideous Blow, but with the same damage implications(although, 27d6 untyped from touch attacks is a lot meaner than 20d6 electricity + random weapon damage from non-touch melee).
PinkTaco 12-30-07, 12:06 AM	Sure, it doesn't specifically say it works how I says it does. It shouldn't have to. Yeah, it should specifically state how it works. Then we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. :P
LoneFlame 12-30-07, 12:20 AM	Yeah, it should specifically state how it works. Then we wouldn't have these kinds of debates. :P Too true... Arguing this one is really giving me a headache...
FrostHammer 12-30-07, 02:57 AM	Jeez, just houserule it however you guys want instead of arguing over this. This is all up to interpretation, depending on how powerful you wish for the Duskblade to be.
Marcus Majarra 12-30-07, 07:36 AM	Since apparently my last example wasn't good enough, here's a more closely related example... Eldritch Glaive. Again, this is a poor example. It relates to Arcane Channeling in no way. The invocation turns your eldritch blast into a weapon, which makes it follow all weapon rules. You're effectively wielding a weapon that deals eldritch blast damage. The duskblade ability doesn't even begin to work like that. All the ability states is that each target you hit in melee suffers the effects of the spell, not that every attack delivers the effects of the spell. This is all up to interpretation, depending on how powerful you wish for the Duskblade to be. I disagree. The FAQ is making it clear which interpretation is the correct one. It's not like you can prove the official FAQ is wrong in this case.
dman11235 12-30-07, 11:01 AM	In addition to it specifically stating what it does, Eldritch Glaive is a power-up from Hideous Blow. And doesn't allow you to use a spell through it. But note the specifying. That is actually an example FOR it only working once per person, if anything.
Occams_Razor 12-30-07, 05:35 PM	It does specifically state what it does. If it were effective "each time you struck an opponent" (including iterative attacks) it would say that. Instead, it specifies by "each target you hit". This means that it is effective against each "thing" you hit. The intention was likely something along the lines of attacking three enemies and one portcullis chain, or something along those lines. The wording is actually pretty clear, all things considered. You have to really want it to count against the same opponent multiple times to read it that way.
LoneFlame 12-30-07, 09:36 PM	In addition to it specifically stating what it does, Eldritch Glaive is a power-up from Hideous Blow. And doesn't allow you to use a spell through it. But note the specifying. That is actually an example FOR it only working once per person, if anything. Yes, because everyone at WotC follows the exact same strict rules for writing things out and explaining them. Then again, they basically say about the same thing(only Eldritch Glaive has more detail, because it defies the norm for Eldritch Blast, one attack with eldritch blast a round) The reason full-round Arcane Channeling effects the same person multiple times is because the spell is still on the blade for the entire round. The channeled spell doesn't instantly disappear after hitting one person. It's on the blade for the entire round. Since you can hit someone more than once with your full round attack, you can hit the same guy & hurt him with the spell again, because the energy is still on your weapon. It hasn't dissipated after one hit like it normally would, nor does it say that prior targets are somehow immune to further damage in that round after initial damage from the spell. The multiple target clause clearly is intended for iterative attacks and/or extra attacks(such as those made from attacks of opportunity). To use a technological example(just for fun), it's like going from a capacitor, which only can keep a charge only enough to shock someone just once, to a high powered battery, which can shock that same someone more than once. That essentially what full-round Arcane Channeling does(much like how Eldritch Glaive turns the one-shot a round Eldritch Blast into a full-round attack worth of hurt. It really is the same principle, even though it's not 100% the same). Having said all of this, I'm out of arguments(which is okay, since no more should be needed). If someone lacks the logical thought, decent understanding of the English language, & common sense to be able to understand & accept how full-round arcane channeling is clearly is intended to work, then there isn't anything I can do that will change their minds.
Occams_Razor 12-30-07, 11:55 PM	Having said all of this, I'm out of arguments(which is okay, since no more should be needed). If someone lacks the logical thought, decent understanding of the English language, & common sense to be able to understand & accept how full-round arcane channeling is clearly is intended to work, then there isn't anything I can do that will change their minds. Firstly, I think this is an unacceptable statement for such a clear, well-considered discussion. I will not insult your intelligence, as I do not know you, and you should not insult mine, for the same reason. Yes, because everyone at WotC follows the exact same strict rules for writing things out and explaining them. Then again, they basically say about the same thing(only Eldritch Glaive has more detail, because it defies the norm for Eldritch Blast, one attack with eldritch blast a round) The reason full-round Arcane Channeling effects the same person multiple times is because the spell is still on the blade for the entire round. The channeled spell doesn't instantly disappear after hitting one person. It's on the blade for the entire round. Since you can hit someone more than once with your full round attack, you can hit the same guy & hurt him with the spell again, because the energy is still on your weapon. It hasn't dissipated after one hit like it normally would, nor does it say that prior targets are somehow immune to further damage in that round after initial damage from the spell. The multiple target clause clearly is intended for iterative attacks and/or extra attacks(such as those made from attacks of opportunity). To use a technological example(just for fun), it's like going from a capacitor, which only can keep a charge only enough to shock someone just once, to a high powered battery, which can shock that same someone more than once. That essentially what full-round Arcane Channeling does(much like how Eldritch Glaive turns the one-shot a round Eldritch Blast into a full-round attack worth of hurt. It really is the same principle, even though it's not 100% the same). This is a seperate argument. While it may be realistic to interpret the ability that way, it is not the way the rule is written. I see your point, but I really think you are conflating the argument for a different rule with the argument regarding the wording of the rule. As it exists, the rule indicates that the spell affects each target you hit. It does not say that it applies the spell affect to each hit you score with your weapon. This is a striking difference, and while you may argue that it reduces the effectiveness of the ability, I do not believe that it is an unreasonable limitation, nor is it completely unjustafiable. Instead of thinking of the effect like using the weapon as a capacitor, consider the idea that the weapon is effectively a "marker" tagging targets for your spell to effect. Hitting the same target would not have additional effect in this case, because the target is either marked or unmarked. While somewhat inverse, applying the notion of a laser-guided bomb would be similar: the bomb will strike the laser-designated target, using additional lasers will have no additional effect.
Marcus Majarra 12-30-07, 11:58 PM	The reason full-round Arcane Channeling effects the same person multiple times is because the spell is still on the blade for the entire round. The channeled spell doesn't instantly disappear after hitting one person. It's on the blade for the entire round. Since you can hit someone more than once with your full round attack, you can hit the same guy & hurt him with the spell again, because the energy is still on your weapon. It hasn't dissipated after one hit like it normally would, nor does it say that prior targets are somehow immune to further damage in that round after initial damage from the spell. The multiple target clause clearly is intended for iterative attacks and/or extra attacks(such as those made from attacks of opportunity). Wait, because arcane channeling allows you to deliver the effects of the spell to each target you hit in a round you suddenly become able to deliver the effects of the spell more than once on the same target? You're making this all up. Just because the ability applies during an entire round doesn't mean that the spell is channeled through every attack. This is speculation based on nothing other than wishful thinking. To use a technological example(just for fun), it's like going from a capacitor, which only can keep a charge only enough to shock someone just once, to a high powered battery, which can shock that same someone more than once. That essentially what full-round Arcane Channeling does(much like how Eldritch Glaive turns the one-shot a round Eldritch Blast into a full-round attack worth of hurt. It really is the same principle, even though it's not 100% the same). Again, this comparison is a poor one. You should try focusing on the rules and appropriate FAQ before coming up with analogies to justify your claims. What you're doing is circular reasoning. Furthermore, Eldritch Glaive turns your eldritch blast into a melee weapon. Arcane channeling doesn't turn your touch spell into a melee weapon. It merely allows you to deliver the effects of a spell in addition to your normal attacks. It doesn't allow you to target anyone more than once with the same spell. Having said all of this, I'm out of arguments(which is okay, since no more should be needed). If someone lacks the logical thought, decent understanding of the English language, & common sense to be able to understand & accept how full-round arcane channeling is clearly is intended to work, then there isn't anything I can do that will change their minds. It's funny that you should say all of this. Logical thought and even a basic understanding of the English language require that you consider what's written. For all your so-called common sense, you fail to notice that there's no mention of being able to deliver the effects of the spell more than once on each target or that the official FAQ even goes so far as to point this out to you. The reason you're out of arguments is because there are no coherent arguments that justify what you want. If you want to house rule differently, go ahead. Just don't go discrediting the FAQ because you choose to interpret the rules in a way that lacks any decent support other than the idea that because the spell discharges at the end of the round, it is automatically channeled through every attack, which is no guarantee of your claims. If something were to be applied to every attack, it would've been explicitly stated as such, as is the case with every single ability applying to each attack.
LoneFlame 12-31-07, 12:19 AM	Occams_Razor - No disrespect, but learn to read between the lines. If I'm wrong, then I apologize. Marcus Majarra - There isn't anything nice I have to say to you. I'm just going to leave it at that. Anywayz. Clarification is nice, but should not always be needed. I think it's clear how that ability is intended to work. Yet, somehow there are plenty of people who are inclined to disagree. I'm over 99% sure they are wrong. I would love nothing more for the guy who made the class to tell us how it's supposed to work, but that probably won't happen. I don't care if I'm wrong. I really want to know beyond any doubt, beyond any arguement how it is supposed to work.
rironin 12-31-07, 12:33 AM	Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly with everyone defending the position that the RAW and the accompanying FAQ make it quite clear that you cannot affect the same target more than once with a channeled spell using Arcane Channeling. Whether this is fair or best is another topic, but as far as the question at hand is concerned, I think it's pretty clear. Secondly, I think there's an update in the FAQ that sheds light on how to adjudicate using this ability on multiple targets with vampiric touch. As Cold Napalm has pointed out, the spell is only being cast once; I tend to agree that all the damage dealt by the spell will therefore be converted to temporary hit points for the caster, and each target's damage will stack since it's all the same source, the same casting of one spell. The FAQ seems to indicate that the damage cap on vampiric touch is not absolute or global; it simply indicates the caster level cap for calculating how much damage the spell normally deals.If a rogue delivered a sneak attack with the vampiric touch spell, would the extra damage from the sneak attack also give her extra hit points? And could the sneak attack dice allow her to exceed the maximum damage allowed by the spell? Yes and yes. The spell simply says that you “gain temporary hit points equal to the damage you deal.” The spell doesn’t seem to care how you get to that value (Empower Spell, sneak attack, and so on), so a rogue who delivered 50 points of damage with vampiric touch would gain 50 temporary hit points. The maximum damage listed for the spell only applies to the damage gained by your caster level; it doesn’t take into account any other benefits the character might have, such as sneak attack damage.I think a duskblade using a single casting of vampiric touch to attack multiple targets would gain temporary hit points from each one, with no overall maximum (although the caster level cap would apply to determine how many dice are rolled per target as normal).
UAMDB 12-31-07, 09:53 AM	If I'm wrong, then I apologize. . Yes you should apologize. Not for being wrong in thinking that the spells effect the same person more than once, but for calling anyone who does not agree with you stupid. That makes it appear that you are a very immature person. The wording is that the spell effects each TARGET hit. Not with each hit. Hitting the same person multiple times only makes them one target.
Spikes01k 12-31-07, 10:13 AM	To milk the spell for all it's worth, yes, you'll need to spread the attacks among more enemies. Think about a duskblade that got access (via a PrC or something) to a save-or-die touch spell, or something equally deadly like shivering touch. Add in the full two weapon fighting feat tree... 7 saves-or-die in a round, against one target. It would be harsh. If I am not mistaken you can only apply this effect to one weapon...
LoneFlame 12-31-07, 11:06 AM	Yes you should apologize. Not for being wrong in thinking that the spells effect the same person more than once, but for calling anyone who does not agree with you stupid. That makes it appear that you are a very immature person. Not once did I call anyone stupid. I have no animosity towards Occams_Razor(or all the others who disagree with me, minus 1), nor do I think he's an idiot. I merely think he is wrong. If I'm wrong, I've done a him(and others) a great wrong by dragging this topic beyond 1 page. My apology was for wasting people's time with what would be frivolous rants(provided that I'm wrong, which I'll admit, I could be). I will admit that sometimes I do have a problem with people not being able to understand things that I feel are obvious(like people needing clarification on immunity to effect x & wondering whether or not they're immune to all things that cause immunity to effect x, even though it does something like "immunity to effect x, but only under z condition). The way I see it, I'm most likely right & the text backs up my statement. Don't get me wrong, I actually see how it can be interpreted as my opponents have, but I find that after rereading the text indicates it works as I say it does. Now, one of the biggest arguments against seems to be that the FAQ says I'm wrong. While the FAQ more often than not is right, it isn't always correct. Take Hideous Blow for example. The FAQ says that Hideous Blow provokes an AO, however, the guy who made the class says that it does not. Which one is right? Some have said that my examples don't aren't similar enough to the argument I'm trying to make. If you can't note the similarities, than either it's a problem with you or it's a problem with me(or both). Either way, there's no means(that I know of) to try to better clarify my examples.
UAMDB 12-31-07, 11:24 AM	Having said all of this, I'm out of arguments(which is okay, since no more should be needed). If someone lacks the logical thought, decent understanding of the English language, & common sense to be able to understand & accept how full-round arcane channeling is clearly is intended to work, then there isn't anything I can do that will change their minds. I am sorry, but that is basicly saying someone is stupid. You are saying that since you don't agree with me then you can not understand english, and have no common sense. Very mature on your part. As far as the rules, you are reading them the way you want to. Thats fine, just make it a house rule and be done. However, you appear to be the only person who thinks this. Most people on this board, and WoTC agree that it does not effect the same person twice. I am not sure what part of the "each Target hit" makes you think that a target is effected more than once. Don't get me wrong, when I first read the ability I thought it worked the way you think it does. Then I reread it and reallized that I was wrong. One more thing, If you are not going to change your mind regardless of what other people say, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
LoneFlame 12-31-07, 12:30 PM	You are saying that since you don't agree with me then you can not understand english, and have no common sense. Very mature on your part. You know something. You might be right. I admit wasn't exactly in the best of moods when I wrote that. In my defense, I was partially justified, but in hindsight, definitely not justified enough to go off like that. I only have any animosity towards one of the people who disagrees with me, and I'll probably get over that in a day or two. Sometimes I get a little too worked up over things I shouldn't. For those who I offended with my needless & foolish statement, I apologize. Most people on this board, and WoTC agree that it does not effect the same person twice. By WotC, you mean 1 guy, who in turn influences most(if not all) of the people who disagree with me. Gotcha. I am not sure what part of the "each Target hit" makes you think that a target is effected more than once. The part where that sounds more like an attempt to include any extra attacks from AOs & hitting more than one guy with a full attack, than it sounds like a rule setting it up to where you can't hit the same guy more than once with full effect. One more thing, If you are not going to change your mind regardless of what other people say, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. You know, that cuts both ways. I'm not the only one who's picked a side & stuck with it. I think I'm right & apparently don't have a good enough argument to get others to agree with me. At the same time, the people who I'm debating with haven't given me an argument that isn't essentially something along the lines of "The FAQ says it works like that" or "This ambiguous piece of text is interpreted like this, because why else would it be there"
rironin 12-31-07, 02:06 PM	I only have any animosity towards one of the people who disagrees with me, and I'll probably get over that in a day or two. Sometimes I get a little too worked up over things I shouldn't. For those who I offended with my needless & foolish statement, I apologize.Fair play to LoneFlame. I think every rules lawyer here (*raises hand*) can get a little worked up sometimes - but I don't see many of us copping to it and moving on. I hope that the next time I make the same mistake, I handle it the same way. :)
Nat_20 12-31-07, 03:48 PM	So... what is it again??? Multiple hits to one target or multiple hits to different targets??? i just wanna know for future reference lol
Cold Napalm 12-31-07, 04:40 PM	By RAW, it works multiple hits on one guy...HOWEVER for those of you who are rules lawyers will realize that they were ATTEMPTING something different. The wording just isn't quite right...but the wording CLEARLY from a rule lawyer stand point allow multiple hits on the same target. The FAQ says one hit per critter as a clarification...however THAT isn't true since they need to actually change what the rules say so it should have been an errata. They didn't however and since many of us ignore the FAQ because it's just wrong in so many areas, this wasn't the best place to put in a rules change (not to mention all rule changes are suppose to be errata not the FAQ anyways). Does anyone here think that the RAW without the FAQ means one target per creature? No really ignore the FAQ for now and JUST read the entry in the book. Does that CLEARLY say one per critter at ANY point? Let look at things that empower something for a round(arcane strike for example)...is there ever one where it limits you to one creature only? Nope? Then there is NO reason to assume otherwise without the FAQ and hence they placed it wrong. So as it goes by RAW you can hit the same critter multiple times...however if you place any fate in the FAQ(and in this singular case I do because as I mentioned the wording isn't quite right and you can see they wanted more limitation...just utterly failed at it), then it's one per critter. In either case however, vampiric touch clearly applies ALL the damage you do with this ability as temp HP...eitherway it's pretty worthwhile.
Catra 12-31-07, 05:10 PM	First of all, I am in agreement with the idea that the Rules as Written suggest the conclusion the FAQ arrived at, that the spell only affects each target once no matter how many times you hit them. Secondly, I am in agreement that the Rules as Written could be interpreted to mean that the spell affects one target more than once, because the Rules as Written do not clearly indicate that this in not possible. The only thing that the RAW clearly indicates is that the touch-spell can be spread over different opponents through melee attack. It says that the spell affects each target successfully hit, it does not explicitly state how many times the target is affected. Therefore, while the RAW tends to lean toward the once-per-enemy ruling, the actual meaning could be interpreted either way.
Cold Napalm 12-31-07, 05:23 PM	First of all, I am in agreement with the idea that the Rules as Written suggest the conclusion the FAQ arrived at, that the spell only affects each target once no matter how many times you hit them. It only suggest it however if your a rules monkey because you have seen enough rules to note this as an anomoly. That is the problem.
Catra 12-31-07, 08:14 PM	Personally I plan on changing the 13th level Arcane Channeling to being able to channel ranged touch attacks. This is more balanced to me than 20d6 damage in one round from a first-level spell, spell resistance or not.
Sinfire Titan 12-31-07, 09:27 PM	Personally I plan on changing the 13th level Arcane Channeling to being able to channel ranged touch attacks. This is more balanced to me than 20d6 damage in one round from a first-level spell, spell resistance or not. Um, did you look at their spell list? Because Disintegrate breaks that interpretation wide open. The spell is already powerful as is, you don't need to make it that much better!!
Catra 12-31-07, 10:12 PM	Even so, Duskblades don't even learn their 5th level spells until level 17, and at that point I think you've earned a little bit of disintegrating power. I guess it all comes down to whether 20d6 damage at an early level is more balanced than 40d6 damage at a later one.
Sinfire Titan 12-31-07, 11:40 PM	Even so, Duskblades don't even learn their 5th level spells until level 17, and at that point I think you've earned a little bit of disintegrating power. I guess it all comes down to whether 20d6 damage at an early level is more balanced than 40d6 damage at a later one. They have Scorching Ray! It is better if you channel it your way, as then Scorching Ray becomes 12d6 fire damage per hit. More with Sudden Empower. Besides, you aren't guaranteed that all of your attacks that round will hit, which makes Scorching Ray so much more powerful than Shocking Grasp if it could be channeled.
Catra 01-01-08, 06:09 AM	Technically since you only get one attack with the Arcane Channeling ability per round, it would be a maximum of 12d6 per turn (that's if you rule that the attack expends all three rays the spell gives you at once). That's still not the 20d6 damage you could get with shocking grasp if you interpret the RAW to allow you do do this. Hm..ranged touch attack spells seem to be too tricky to implement in this way. Perhaps I should give up on them and think of something else.
LoneFlame 01-01-08, 02:46 PM	I guess it all comes down to whether 20d6 damage at an early level is more balanced than 40d6 damage at a later one. Try 15d6 starting out, with a more likely chance of 5d6 or 10d6. Remember, it's a 13th lv ability, & their BAB only allows for 3 attacks, one of which is highly unlikely to hit. Even with their full BAB, Duskblades don't get their 4th attack until lv 16(which is practically guaranteed to miss... even at lv 20). In practice, that 20d6 is more like a 10d6 or a 15d6 at best, since they still have to hit their target(s) with each attack and I'm pretty sure those aren't touch attack(but not 100% sure). Anyway, the point is that's a pretty big potential damage gap for only a 1 lv difference. For Max Damage Dice Comparison(excluding possible critical hit damage): Duskblade with Disintigrate: 40d6 + 1d8 + 10(using a basic +5 Weapon Damage & a 5 strength mod Estimate) = max of 258 Duskblade with Shocking Grasp: 20d6 + 4d8 + 40 = max of 192 Warlock with Eldritch Glaive: 27d6 = max of 162 Rogue with Sneak Attack: 30d6 + 3d6 + 30 = 228 max Hellfire Warlock with Eld. Glaive: 45d6 = 270 max
Marcus Majarra 01-01-08, 05:48 PM	By RAW, it works multiple hits on one guy...HOWEVER for those of you who are rules lawyers will realize that they were ATTEMPTING something different. The wording just isn't quite right...but the wording CLEARLY from a rule lawyer stand point allow multiple hits on the same target. The FAQ says one hit per critter as a clarification...however THAT isn't true since they need to actually change what the rules say so it should have been an errata. Actually, nothing in the RAW directly states anything to this effect. As stated above, the ability's description only indicates that each target suffers the effects of the spell. The FAQ confirms that this means that it applies once to each creature struck. Can you actually demonstrate how the ability's text proves your idea, without adding text of your own or basing your conclusion on anything other than the ability text? They didn't however and since many of us ignore the FAQ because it's just wrong in so many areas, this wasn't the best place to put in a rules change (not to mention all rule changes are suppose to be errata not the FAQ anyways). Because the FAQ isn't fullproof, it's suddenly justifiable to disregard it? Please. The FAQ is written by someone with authority to provide these rules clarifications. Perhaps if you were to stop and assume that the FAQ is clarifying a rule, you would come to understand that your misconceptions about arcane channeling are exactly that: misconceptions. In any case, the FAQ isn't changing a rule. So this is not even an issue. Does anyone here think that the RAW without the FAQ means one target per creature? No really ignore the FAQ for now and JUST read the entry in the book. Does that CLEARLY say one per critter at ANY point? Yes: "the spell affects each target you hit in melee that combat round." If you look at the glossary definition of a target, you'll see that a target is "the intended recipient of an attack, spell, supernatural ability, extraordinary ability, or magic effect." When you strike a creature more than once, it remains a single target for your attacks. As such, the channeled spell affects each creature you strike in melee. There is no mention about the channeled spell affecting the target of your attack with every attack you make that round. It's only stated that each creature you attack that round is affected by the spell. Let look at things that empower something for a round(arcane strike for example)...is there ever one where it limits you to one creature only? Nope? How you can compare arcane channeling to the arcane strike feat eludes me. Arcane strike explicitly states that the use of the feat grants you a bonus on attack and damage rolls. In no way is there a mention of applying it to targets in any way, since the feat obviously and explicitly affects your attack and damage rolls. Arcane channeling does no such thing. Then there is NO reason to assume otherwise without the FAQ and hence they placed it wrong. So as it goes by RAW you can hit the same critter multiple times...however if you place any fate in the FAQ(and in this singular case I do because as I mentioned the wording isn't quite right and you can see they wanted more limitation...just utterly failed at it), then it's one per critter. I'm afraid you're incorrect in this. From a RAW point of view, nothing justifies delivering the spell's effects with every attack. If you continue to say otherwise, I recommend you supply us with evidence from the ability's description or any other official reference to arcane channeling.
Catra 01-01-08, 10:34 PM	LoneFlame, you are correct, and thank you for your max damage comparison. That was helpful. I had the fact that Duskblades will only be able to actually hit and do damage so many times a round in the back of my head when thinking about this (and you're right, it's handled as a melee attack and not a touch attack), but sort of ignored it. I think instead of letting them make several attacks in one round, I'll just extend the duration of the spell on the blade. Therefore, one channeled spell lasts for four rounds (one attack per round), so you still get the 20d6 damage but it is more spread out. Maybe I'll houserule a disintigrating touch spell or something for a kind of capstone spell.
LoneFlame 01-02-08, 12:43 AM	<snipped by WizOMars> The full round version of Arcane Channeling does not specifically state that you can't get the full effect from hitting the same guy multiple times. It does say that you can, spread your attacks out & hit multiple people, but nowhere in the description does it contain text that clearly states that you are limited to doing just that. The function of the full-round Arcane Channeling is that it makes your weapon have a spell channeled onto it for a full-round. Now, if I were to hit someone(such as the one guy in a D&D group that most of the other don't like, but for some reason still plays with them) multiple times with a +1 Flaming Mace, surely, he doesn't only take the flaming only once. The same logic applies here, since there is no definitive proof outside of the FAQ(which is not always right & has a chance that it may not be in this case) to say otherwise.
Marcus Majarra 01-02-08, 01:40 AM	The full round version of Arcane Channeling does not specifically state that you can't get the full effect from hitting the same guy multiple times. It does say that you can, spread your attacks out & hit multiple people, but nowhere in the description does it contain text that clearly states that you are limited to doing just that. Fallacy. Just because something isn't written as being impossible doesn't actually make it possible. For example, the fireball spell doesn't say it's impossible to also deal 20d6 points of cold damage in addition to the normal effects of the spell. Does this mean that it's automatically possible to do so? Heck no. The ability states exactly what you can do with it. If something's not written there, then you can't assume that it's allowed. In fact, things go the other way around. The function of the full-round Arcane Channeling is that it makes your weapon have a spell channeled onto it for a full-round. Now, if I were to hit someone(such as the one guy in a D&D group that most of the other don't like, but for some reason still plays with them) multiple times with a +1 Flaming Mace, surely, he doesn't only take the flaming only once. I suggest you read the arcane channeling ability again. In no way does this ability affect your weapon. What the ability does is allow the caster to deliver touch spells through weapon attacks, as opposed to the conventional method for touch spell delivery (melee touch attacks). The full-round version of the ability merely circumvents the usual limit on the number of targets for your touch spells, in addition to being able to deliver touch spells through weapon attacks. In no way should it be assumed that you're allowed to target the same creature more than once with the same spell. the FAQ(which is not always right & has a chance that it may not be in this case) Another fallacy. Yes, the FAQ is fallible. However, this is the exception; not the norm. If you cannot prove the FAQ is incorrect, then you should assume it is correct in its statements. In this instance, it is merely providing a clarification for a rules issue that is obviously misinterpreted. It isn't changing any rule, simply because what you believe to be a rule is actually a misconception. You're assuming the ability charges your weapon with the spell for an entire round, which is incorrect. What the ability does is merely allow you to deliver touch spells through your weapon attacks to each target you hit in melee during an entire round. The FAQ confirms this. Similarly, to address this question: Now, one of the biggest arguments against seems to be that the FAQ says I'm wrong. While the FAQ more often than not is right, it isn't always correct. Take Hideous Blow for example. The FAQ says that Hideous Blow provokes an AO, however, the guy who made the class says that it does not. Which one is right? The FAQ is right again. Nothing in the actual book stipulates that you suddenly forego the usual AoO for using a spell-like ability while threatened, when using hideous blow. While the author might have intended otherwise, and with good reason, it wasn't printed as such. In this case, in order for the use of this invocation not to provoke AoO, errata needs to be published.
LoneFlame 01-02-08, 01:13 PM	While the author might have intended otherwise, and with good reason, it wasn't printed as such. In this case, in order for the use of this invocation not to provoke AoO, errata needs to be published. I'd rather go with what the designer of the class says about it, rather than the FAQ does. Sometimes sense over-rides rules. If you cannot prove the FAQ is incorrect, then you should assume it is correct in its statements. I do assume it's right unless legitimately doesn't seem to be right. In this case, it doesn't seem to be. The full-round version of the ability merely circumvents the usual limit on the number of targets for your touch spells, in addition to being able to deliver touch spells through weapon attacks. In no way should it be assumed that you're allowed to target the same creature more than once with the same spell. Never says you can't hit the same guy. The spell's still there, & has been extended to being there for a full round(much like how an Eldritch Glaive is there for a full-round). If I hit you once with it & remove my weapon from your face, the spell is still on the weapon. So, if I hit you again, how would you be immune from take the damaging again? For example, the fireball spell doesn't say it's impossible to also deal 20d6 points of cold damage in addition to the normal effects of the spell. Does this mean that it's automatically possible to do so? Heck no. I think I would need to install an ejector seat on my motorcycle to be able to make that jump. Evil Knievel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Knievel) would be proud. Well, I think I'll walk away from this one before I get myself banned.
wonlee76 01-02-08, 01:27 PM	I'd rather go with what the designer of the class says about it, rather than the FAQ does. Sometimes sense over-rides rules. Just out of curiosity, did the designer ever say what he intended for the Duskblade's 13th level ability? I generally agree with your statement as a basis for houserules where the original author has stated that the published material is not what he/she intended (Greenbound Summoning intended to be a +2 Metamagic feat, Invisible Blade Pre-reqs now tweaked because orginal design was a 10 level prestige class specializing in throwing daggers and using daggers in melee, etc.) but I haven't seen anything in this particular case where the designer said what he intended. If he did say he intended for each attack channels the spell no matter who the target is, I'm curious to see where that statement is. I do assume it's right unless legitimately doesn't seem to be right. In this case, it doesn't seem to be. What makes you think this is not right. It seems the FAQ answer seems to be right on the ball as far as RAW is concerned. Pre-Level 13 Duskblade: Standard action to channel a spell meaning he only gets 1 attack per round if he chooses to channel. Level 13+ Duskblade: Channeling now is part of a full attack action so you can now get multiple attacks while still channeling your spell with an explicit exception that the spell can affect multiple targets. No explicit statement that the spell can affect the same target multiple times. Its still a beneficial ability with the added bonus of if you missed with your first attack, your second attack on that 1 target would still get the benefit of the channeled spell. Never says you can't hit the same guy. The spell's still there, & has been extended to being there for a full round(much like how an Eldritch Glaive is there for a full-round). If I hit you once with it & remove my weapon from your face, the spell is still on the weapon. So, if I hit you again, how would you be immune from take the damaging again? It never says you can channel the spell on the same guy. From a "realistic" stand point, I understand your point that each attack should get the benefit of the channeled spell but from a rules interpretation stand point, nothing in the ability states you can do this. You shouldn't compare it to Eldritch Glaive either since Eldritch Glaive explicitly states you get ititerative touch attacks with that ability.
Marcus Majarra 01-02-08, 01:34 PM	Never says you can't hit the same guy. But it doesn't say you enjoy any other benefits for striking the same creature more than once. In fact, it's quite silent as to what would happen if you strike a creature more than once. The spell's still there, & has been extended to being there for a full round(much like how an Eldritch Glaive is there for a full-round). This is incorrect. The spell is not extended in any way. In fact, it is trimmed if its duration is longer than one round. You shouldn't compare this ability to eldritch glaive, since that invocation turns your eldritch blast into a weapon. Arcane channeling doesn't transform your touch spell into a weapon, so there's no reason to assume you can do with your touch spell the same things you do with a weapon. If I hit you once with it & remove my weapon from your face, the spell is still on the weapon. So, if I hit you again, how would you be immune from take the damaging again? Incorrect. The spell is never on the weapon. The spell is, in fact, nowhere specific. The ability merely reads that you deliver the effects of your spell to each target you hit. I think I would need to install an ejector seat on my motorcycle to be able to make that jump. Evil Knievel would be proud. I'm not sure what you mean by this. My point was that if something's not already possible for you and the ability doesn't make it more possible to you, then you remain incapable of doing it. As it is, you cannot target the same creature more than once with the same touch spell unless otherwise stated. Arcane channeling doesn't circumvent this. As such, there's no reason to assume that you can.
LoneFlame 01-02-08, 01:36 PM	Eldritch Glaive specifically states that you get iterative attacks because you normally don't with Eldritch Blast Full-round Arcane Channeling shouldn't have to, because it says 'as a full attack', which indicates that iterative attacks are understood, because full-round arcane channeling is a full attack(however, extra attacks from any off-hand weapons clearly don't get any benefits, since it does specifically say weapon, singular). What that added text after the bit about 'each target you hit' could more easily be there to indicate that you can use this with AOs, rather than it could be there to state that you can't hit the same guy more than once with full effect. EDIT: Walking away from this argument before I get banned now...
Marcus Majarra 01-02-08, 04:33 PM	Full-round Arcane Channeling shouldn't have to, because it says 'as a full attack', which indicates that iterative attacks are understood, because full-round arcane channeling is a full attack(however, extra attacks from any off-hand weapons clearly don't get any benefits, since it does specifically say weapon, singular). What that added text after the bit about 'each target you hit' could more easily be there to indicate that you can use this with AOs, rather than it could be there to state that you can't hit the same guy more than once with full effect. The reference to the full attack is merely an indicator of the action you're taking when activating arcane channeling. It is, by no means, an indicator that the effects of the spell are delivered with every hit. While you'll get no argument from me as to whether you can channel the touch spell through AoOs (this is possible), there is still no solid evidence to support the idea that the spell's effects are delivered with every hit. In essence, nothing prevents you from attacking an opponent multiple times during a round. The effects of the channeled spell, however, are delivered but once, since there is no indication that they are delivered more often. As for the singular reference to weapon, it is by no means a binding limit as to whether or not you're prohibited from delivering your touch spells with any and all weapons you're wielding. After all, you never actually strike your opponent with multiple weapons at the same time. Of course, this matter is also unclear and worthy of a FAQ clarification.