Duskblade Q [Archive] - Wizards Community

Duskblade Q [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Candin
08-15-07, 08:54 PM This is a question about Arcane Channeling. A friend of mine is saying that, at 13th level, when he can channel a spell as a part of a full attack action, he will dominate. Here's his theory.

He channels Scorching Ray, and proceeds to do his full attack. He argues that the 12d6 points of damage are applied to ever attack in his full attack, which at the earliest point is three attacks. That's a wopping 36d6 points of damage, not including the damage that he does naturally with the old iron longsword.

The text reads that the spell is applied to "each target you hit in melee combat that round". This guy DM a game a while back, and in it the ruling was that you can't change targets during a full attack action, and from this he's drawn that it entails that each hit gains the 12d6 points of damage from the three scorching rays.

I'm under the impression that since it says that the spell affects each target hit, he would deal 12d6 points of damage to something that he wails on, and continue his attack normally (at the lowest level, his two remaining attacks). Should he drop whatever he's cutting holes in, and cleave into another (or by whatever means attack something else) that new target would take the 12d6 points of damage as well.

Just curious how you guys interpret the duskblade abilities.
claypigeons
08-15-07, 09:28 PM This is a question about Arcane Channeling. A friend of mine is saying that, at 13th level, when he can channel a spell as a part of a full attack action, he will dominate. Here's his theory.

He channels Scorching Ray, and proceeds to do his full attack. He argues that the 12d6 points of damage are applied to ever attack in his full attack, which at the earliest point is three attacks. That's a wopping 36d6 points of damage, not including the damage that he does naturally with the old iron longsword.

The text reads that the spell is applied to "each target you hit in melee combat that round". This guy DM a game a while back, and in it the ruling was that you can't change targets during a full attack action, and from this he's drawn that it entails that each hit gains the 12d6 points of damage from the three scorching rays.

I'm under the impression that since it says that the spell affects each target hit, he would deal 12d6 points of damage to something that he wails on, and continue his attack normally (at the lowest level, his two remaining attacks). Should he drop whatever he's cutting holes in, and cleave into another (or by whatever means attack something else) that new target would take the 12d6 points of damage as well.

Just curious how you guys interpret the duskblade abilities.

Duskblades are there to deal damage. That's it. That's all they do. Let him have his ride his one-trick pony.
SillyRobot
08-15-07, 09:36 PM Check the D&D 3.5 Main FAQ, page 16.

Since the site is currently non-functional as part of some annoying rollout, here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv07132007.zip) is a link to the file in question for your convienence.
Crimson_Concerto
08-15-07, 09:39 PM Scorching Ray cannot be channelled. It's not a Touch attack. It's a Ray attack. There's a difference.

Also, the spell he channels will only apply once to each target hit with that full attack, not once for each attack. This is a common misunderstanding.

Oh, and you CAN switch targets in the middle of a full attack if you want to. Whatever DM made that ruling had no idea what he was talking about.
Candin
08-15-07, 09:44 PM Duskblades are there to deal damage. That's it. That's all they do. Let him have his ride his one-trick pony.

I'm not opposed to him doing what he does. I didn't even bring up my interpretation when he talked to the DM about it, because it's not my decision to make.

And to Crimson_concerto, the DM who made the ruling is the guy playing the duskblade (:
Cold Napalm
08-15-07, 10:52 PM sword?!? sorching ray?!? He's not thing big enough. Whip+whirlwind+vampiric touch...muhahahahahaha.
TheScapegoat
08-17-07, 01:56 AM Scorching Ray cannot be channelled. It's not a Touch attack. It's a Ray attack. There's a difference.

Ray is a fancy world for ranged touch attack, you can in fact channel ranged touch attacks. I have proof.

In the monster manual 5 they give an example of giving some classes to hobgobins. One class is Duskblade. Under tactics for this they mention the fact that the hobgoblin Duskblade should "use arcane channeling to imbue their attacks with shocking grasp, acid splash, and ray of frost."

Both acid splash and ray of frost are ranged touch attacks, RoF being classified as a Ray. You can put 2 and 2 together from there.
Crimson_Concerto
08-17-07, 06:46 PM Yes, that's nice, but I'm afraid that it doesn't prove a thing. They make mistakes with NPCs all the time. I think it's like a rule or something that every NPC printed in a book must have something wrong with it. :rofl:
One right off the top of my head is the example Swordsage, who weilds a bow without penalty, even though Swordsages don't get proficiency with them. Would you then conclude that the Swordsage is supposed to be getting that proficiency?

However, just because something requires a touch attack doesn't make it a Touch spell. Spells requiring ranged touch attacks are Ray spells, and spells requiring melee touch attack are Touch spells. This has been debated many times, and the topic is brought up again all the time, but this same conclusion is always drawn in the end in every one of those debates I've read.

They should really issue errata on it one way or the other if only to clarify their intent, but with 4e coming out, that seems unfortunately unlikely.
TheScapegoat
08-17-07, 07:50 PM Well I sent a email to wizards asking to see for sure and hopefully will have a response in a few days (probably not :( ).

I have got a question though. I have read in a few duskblade threads about a Somatic Weaponry feat that is supposedly in the PH2. I have looked through the book and see no feat. I am either very blind or I very much got a feat subtracted from my book. Someone mind helping me out here, maybe I am being told the incorrect book.

Also 4 edition already. :( I really hope it doesn't change much.
claypigeons
08-17-07, 09:58 PM I have got a question though. I have read in a few duskblade threads about a Somatic Weaponry feat that is supposedly in the PH2. I have looked through the book and see no feat. I am either very blind or I very much got a feat subtracted from my book. Someone mind helping me out here, maybe I am being told the incorrect book.

Somatic Weaponry is in Complete Mage, page 47. :)
VanGrue
08-18-07, 04:03 AM Ray is a fancy world for ranged touch attack, you can in fact channel ranged touch attacks. I have proof.

In the monster manual 5 they give an example of giving some classes to hobgobins. One class is Duskblade. Under tactics for this they mention the fact that the hobgoblin Duskblade should "use arcane channeling to imbue their attacks with shocking grasp, acid splash, and ray of frost."

Both acid splash and ray of frost are ranged touch attacks, RoF being classified as a Ray. You can put 2 and 2 together from there.

As above, this is not necessarily proof, just a precedent. You could theoretically use this example to argue with your DM, who would in this case probably win the argument. :)

In any case, the rules for Arcane Channeling specify 'any touch spell' the player knows, which I assume means that the only spells that are intended to qualify are spells listed as having "Touch" as their Range descriptor in the spell listing. However, it's also feasible to include ranged touch, despite how implausible it sounds to deliver a ranged spell through a melee attack.

As much as I'd love to channel Scorching Ray into my Power Attack and "Blade of Blood"-infused vampiric rapier, I believe Shocking Grasp more than picks up the slack at lower levels. :D
TheScapegoat
08-18-07, 12:36 PM I do not see how it is implausible when the spellsword can channel fireballs and lightning bolts through his sword. Plausible really is not a world that should be thrown around with D&D. Anything is plausible as long as it is within the rules, which this may not be.
Cold Napalm
08-18-07, 10:44 PM I do not see how it is implausible when the spellsword can channel fireballs and lightning bolts through his sword. Plausible really is not a world that should be thrown around with D&D. Anything is plausible as long as it is within the rules, which this may not be.

Spellsword can channel AMF and tensers through their sword...their ability is NOTHING even remotely like the duskblades one. We aren't talking plausible in the term of reality plausible, but plausible in the mechanice and rules wise. And since the duskblade ability specifically says a touch spell and not a touch attack spell, mechanically plausible wise, rays are out. Ray and touch spells are both touch attack spells since bot use touch attacks (both melee and ranged touch attacks are touch attacks after all), but only spells with the range of touch are touch spells.
VanGrue
08-18-07, 11:13 PM Spellsword can channel AMF and tensers through their sword...their ability is NOTHING even remotely like the duskblades one. We aren't talking plausible in the term of reality plausible, but plausible in the mechanice and rules wise. And since the duskblade ability specifically says a touch spell and not a touch attack spell, mechanically plausible wise, rays are out. Ray and touch spells are both touch attack spells since bot use touch attacks (both melee and ranged touch attacks are touch attacks after all), but only spells with the range of touch are touch spells.

Thank you, that's what I meant, more specifically.
the_narrator
08-19-07, 04:20 PM Yes, that's nice, but I'm afraid that it doesn't prove a thing. They make mistakes with NPCs all the time. I think it's like a rule or something that every NPC printed in a book must have something wrong with it. :rofl:
One right off the top of my head is the example Swordsage, who weilds a bow without penalty, even though Swordsages don't get proficiency with them. Would you then conclude that the Swordsage is supposed to be getting that proficiency?

I don't have the book with me, but isn't the sample Swordsage an Elf, and thus has the racial weapon proficiency for longbow?
SokenzanMarauder
08-19-07, 04:36 PM I don't have the book with me, but isn't the sample Swordsage an Elf, and thus has the racial weapon proficiency for longbow?
Nope, its a half-elf.

-Gene

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Candin 08-15-07, 08:54 PM	This is a question about Arcane Channeling. A friend of mine is saying that, at 13th level, when he can channel a spell as a part of a full attack action, he will dominate. Here's his theory. He channels Scorching Ray, and proceeds to do his full attack. He argues that the 12d6 points of damage are applied to ever attack in his full attack, which at the earliest point is three attacks. That's a wopping 36d6 points of damage, not including the damage that he does naturally with the old iron longsword. The text reads that the spell is applied to "each target you hit in melee combat that round". This guy DM a game a while back, and in it the ruling was that you can't change targets during a full attack action, and from this he's drawn that it entails that each hit gains the 12d6 points of damage from the three scorching rays. I'm under the impression that since it says that the spell affects each target hit, he would deal 12d6 points of damage to something that he wails on, and continue his attack normally (at the lowest level, his two remaining attacks). Should he drop whatever he's cutting holes in, and cleave into another (or by whatever means attack something else) that new target would take the 12d6 points of damage as well. Just curious how you guys interpret the duskblade abilities.
claypigeons 08-15-07, 09:28 PM	This is a question about Arcane Channeling. A friend of mine is saying that, at 13th level, when he can channel a spell as a part of a full attack action, he will dominate. Here's his theory. He channels Scorching Ray, and proceeds to do his full attack. He argues that the 12d6 points of damage are applied to ever attack in his full attack, which at the earliest point is three attacks. That's a wopping 36d6 points of damage, not including the damage that he does naturally with the old iron longsword. The text reads that the spell is applied to "each target you hit in melee combat that round". This guy DM a game a while back, and in it the ruling was that you can't change targets during a full attack action, and from this he's drawn that it entails that each hit gains the 12d6 points of damage from the three scorching rays. I'm under the impression that since it says that the spell affects each target hit, he would deal 12d6 points of damage to something that he wails on, and continue his attack normally (at the lowest level, his two remaining attacks). Should he drop whatever he's cutting holes in, and cleave into another (or by whatever means attack something else) that new target would take the 12d6 points of damage as well. Just curious how you guys interpret the duskblade abilities. Duskblades are there to deal damage. That's it. That's all they do. Let him have his ride his one-trick pony.
SillyRobot 08-15-07, 09:36 PM	Check the D&D 3.5 Main FAQ, page 16. Since the site is currently non-functional as part of some annoying rollout, here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv07132007.zip) is a link to the file in question for your convienence.
Crimson_Concerto 08-15-07, 09:39 PM	Scorching Ray cannot be channelled. It's not a Touch attack. It's a Ray attack. There's a difference. Also, the spell he channels will only apply once to each target hit with that full attack, not once for each attack. This is a common misunderstanding. Oh, and you CAN switch targets in the middle of a full attack if you want to. Whatever DM made that ruling had no idea what he was talking about.
Candin 08-15-07, 09:44 PM	Duskblades are there to deal damage. That's it. That's all they do. Let him have his ride his one-trick pony. I'm not opposed to him doing what he does. I didn't even bring up my interpretation when he talked to the DM about it, because it's not my decision to make. And to Crimson_concerto, the DM who made the ruling is the guy playing the duskblade (:
Cold Napalm 08-15-07, 10:52 PM	sword?!? sorching ray?!? He's not thing big enough. Whip+whirlwind+vampiric touch...muhahahahahaha.
TheScapegoat 08-17-07, 01:56 AM	Scorching Ray cannot be channelled. It's not a Touch attack. It's a Ray attack. There's a difference. Ray is a fancy world for ranged touch attack, you can in fact channel ranged touch attacks. I have proof. In the monster manual 5 they give an example of giving some classes to hobgobins. One class is Duskblade. Under tactics for this they mention the fact that the hobgoblin Duskblade should "use arcane channeling to imbue their attacks with shocking grasp, acid splash, and ray of frost." Both acid splash and ray of frost are ranged touch attacks, RoF being classified as a Ray. You can put 2 and 2 together from there.
Crimson_Concerto 08-17-07, 06:46 PM	Yes, that's nice, but I'm afraid that it doesn't prove a thing. They make mistakes with NPCs all the time. I think it's like a rule or something that every NPC printed in a book must have something wrong with it. :rofl: One right off the top of my head is the example Swordsage, who weilds a bow without penalty, even though Swordsages don't get proficiency with them. Would you then conclude that the Swordsage is supposed to be getting that proficiency? However, just because something requires a touch attack doesn't make it a Touch spell. Spells requiring ranged touch attacks are Ray spells, and spells requiring melee touch attack are Touch spells. This has been debated many times, and the topic is brought up again all the time, but this same conclusion is always drawn in the end in every one of those debates I've read. They should really issue errata on it one way or the other if only to clarify their intent, but with 4e coming out, that seems unfortunately unlikely.
TheScapegoat 08-17-07, 07:50 PM	Well I sent a email to wizards asking to see for sure and hopefully will have a response in a few days (probably not :( ). I have got a question though. I have read in a few duskblade threads about a Somatic Weaponry feat that is supposedly in the PH2. I have looked through the book and see no feat. I am either very blind or I very much got a feat subtracted from my book. Someone mind helping me out here, maybe I am being told the incorrect book. Also 4 edition already. :( I really hope it doesn't change much.
claypigeons 08-17-07, 09:58 PM	I have got a question though. I have read in a few duskblade threads about a Somatic Weaponry feat that is supposedly in the PH2. I have looked through the book and see no feat. I am either very blind or I very much got a feat subtracted from my book. Someone mind helping me out here, maybe I am being told the incorrect book. Somatic Weaponry is in Complete Mage, page 47. :)
VanGrue 08-18-07, 04:03 AM	Ray is a fancy world for ranged touch attack, you can in fact channel ranged touch attacks. I have proof. In the monster manual 5 they give an example of giving some classes to hobgobins. One class is Duskblade. Under tactics for this they mention the fact that the hobgoblin Duskblade should "use arcane channeling to imbue their attacks with shocking grasp, acid splash, and ray of frost." Both acid splash and ray of frost are ranged touch attacks, RoF being classified as a Ray. You can put 2 and 2 together from there. As above, this is not necessarily proof, just a precedent. You could theoretically use this example to argue with your DM, who would in this case probably win the argument. :) In any case, the rules for Arcane Channeling specify 'any touch spell' the player knows, which I assume means that the only spells that are intended to qualify are spells listed as having "Touch" as their Range descriptor in the spell listing. However, it's also feasible to include ranged touch, despite how implausible it sounds to deliver a ranged spell through a melee attack. As much as I'd love to channel Scorching Ray into my Power Attack and "Blade of Blood"-infused vampiric rapier, I believe Shocking Grasp more than picks up the slack at lower levels. :D
TheScapegoat 08-18-07, 12:36 PM	I do not see how it is implausible when the spellsword can channel fireballs and lightning bolts through his sword. Plausible really is not a world that should be thrown around with D&D. Anything is plausible as long as it is within the rules, which this may not be.
Cold Napalm 08-18-07, 10:44 PM	I do not see how it is implausible when the spellsword can channel fireballs and lightning bolts through his sword. Plausible really is not a world that should be thrown around with D&D. Anything is plausible as long as it is within the rules, which this may not be. Spellsword can channel AMF and tensers through their sword...their ability is NOTHING even remotely like the duskblades one. We aren't talking plausible in the term of reality plausible, but plausible in the mechanice and rules wise. And since the duskblade ability specifically says a touch spell and not a touch attack spell, mechanically plausible wise, rays are out. Ray and touch spells are both touch attack spells since bot use touch attacks (both melee and ranged touch attacks are touch attacks after all), but only spells with the range of touch are touch spells.
VanGrue 08-18-07, 11:13 PM	Spellsword can channel AMF and tensers through their sword...their ability is NOTHING even remotely like the duskblades one. We aren't talking plausible in the term of reality plausible, but plausible in the mechanice and rules wise. And since the duskblade ability specifically says a touch spell and not a touch attack spell, mechanically plausible wise, rays are out. Ray and touch spells are both touch attack spells since bot use touch attacks (both melee and ranged touch attacks are touch attacks after all), but only spells with the range of touch are touch spells. Thank you, that's what I meant, more specifically.
the_narrator 08-19-07, 04:20 PM	Yes, that's nice, but I'm afraid that it doesn't prove a thing. They make mistakes with NPCs all the time. I think it's like a rule or something that every NPC printed in a book must have something wrong with it. :rofl: One right off the top of my head is the example Swordsage, who weilds a bow without penalty, even though Swordsages don't get proficiency with them. Would you then conclude that the Swordsage is supposed to be getting that proficiency? I don't have the book with me, but isn't the sample Swordsage an Elf, and thus has the racial weapon proficiency for longbow?
SokenzanMarauder 08-19-07, 04:36 PM	I don't have the book with me, but isn't the sample Swordsage an Elf, and thus has the racial weapon proficiency for longbow? Nope, its a half-elf. -Gene