Post/Author/DateTime	Post
scienceman47 05-23-07, 12:33 AM	I'm got a problem. Everytime I mention duskblades, all I get from my DM is how overpowered they are and how we don't even need fighters anymore. I've tried to convince him otherwise, but I'm grasping for some hard evidence. Does anyone have any proof that duskblades are not overpowered?
Blackstorm_SK 05-23-07, 01:32 AM	I'm got a problem. Everytime I mention duskblades, all I get from my DM is how overpowered they are and how we don't even need fighters anymore. I've tried to convince him otherwise, but I'm grasping for some hard evidence. Does anyone have any proof that duskblades are not overpowered? :rotfl: If the DB isn't overpowered, I'm the archbishop of Canterbury. Seriously, do you really think it's not overpowerede? You know, get some interesting spells (like disintegrate), channelling, armored casting, and some other stuffthat can be nice... so, if your dm state that it's overpowerede, I think he's right, in part. I know, DB suffer 'cause of MAD, like it need some tons of stats to be good, like a monk... but this is not enough to bring down from the overpowered class platform...
Tempest Stormwind 05-23-07, 01:53 AM	Hi, I'm from the CO board. If you feel that the duskblade is overpowered, very little is going to demonstrate to you that it isn't. Which is a shame, since math's on our side. In Magic terminology, the duskblade is a Timmy class. (If you don't know what "Timmy, Johnny, Spike" means, read up on it here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b).) It has lots of DAMAGE. That's pretty much all the entire class can ever bring to the table -- he's got a few self-only teleports that can make him truly powerful, and he works amazingly well with arcane strike, but he's still fundamentally a DAMAGE character. If the meter by which you judge classes is DAMAGE, then the duskblade is up there. (Far from the top by a long mark, especially since damage is NOT the key to victory except between about level 5 and 9 or so, but that's beside the point.) Mechanically, all the duskblade provides is a single-class fighter-mage. It's great for people like my best friend, who when she started gaming, said: "[Tempest], I want sword, I want armor, and I want lots and lots of FIRE!". Duskblade is the way to go! ...Sadly, when you're wearing the light armor you start out with as a duskblade (you can't cast in heavier at low levels, recall!) and get up close to smack something with an amped-up Blade of Blood-boosted greatsword or take aim at a faraway target with a Kelgore's Fire Bolt... I've already ended the entire encounter with a single sleep or color spray, and your fighter buddy beside you has both a higher AC and more hit points (and likely has better combat scores as well since he doesn't need to amp his Intelligence for spellcasting...). Of course, going back to the "Timmy" idea, that doesn't matter for you. You took down that hobgoblin, dammit! Your kill, and you utterly decimated it on a single blow! Go you! Yay! ...While the bard chats up the man who tried to run and figures out where to go from there, and the rogue finds a hidden door leading to untold treasures and more glorious combat for Herr Duskblade. The class looks far stronger than it actually is. It does its job very, very well and is a blast to play -- however, its job is damage. Its job is not tanking (low HP, arcane spell failure from lower levels, no buff spells, no bonus feats or maneuvers). Its job is not skill use (2 skill points per level). Its job is not even dishing out area damage (it can try, but duskblades tend to have a lower save DC due to their need to focus on Strength and Constitution moreso than their Intelligence). A duskblade's idea of area damage is a channelled Shocking Grasp combined with a full attack. This is viscerally satisfying, as you unify sword and magic and call down arcane lighting even as you cleave them asunder... while your buddy the wizard can hit a larger area for comparable damage without exposing himself to harm at that point. A duskblade's main job is an overwhelming pinpoint offense. Everything he's got is based around dealing damage -- even his more innocuous tricks, such as his channelled Spell Power and quick casting aren't as useful as they would be on other characters, since they primarily help him overcome what would otherwise cripple him. There's nothing wrong with it. Just remember, it's a Timmy. It's not like it's a Spike class (Druid, Cleric) or a Johnny class (martial adepts, strategic (non-damaging) wizards), which look beyond the big numbers and look more into what has a stronger effect on the game.
Tyraxus 05-23-07, 02:13 AM	Well, the first problem is that he's comparing it to the fighter. The fighter is so underpowered it's laughable*, and thus the fighter should not be the yardstick with which to measure balance. That being said, the Duskblade is a rather powerful class. It's supposed to be, it's a Gish. But (IIRC, I don't have my PHBII on me atm), it doesn't get the truly horrible wizard spells a real Gish can get, and is limited to direct damage spells. This is fine: it makes the DB a force in combat, but it's limited to light armour early, and only medium armour later (barring burning a feat), and I think you still have to have a hand free for somatics even without a spell failure chance, so sword/board isn't that viable a tactic (barring another feat for Quick Draw, and then you still draw an AoO in melee), regardless of the picture in the book. Couple that with the d8 hit die, and you realize it's most definitely not a tank. Best-case, a well-played Duskblade makes a good 5th man as a flank-harrier, but the worst case (a badly played one) sucks party resources to rez him so many times it's not even funny. * - To everybody who says the fighter is perfectly fine: At 20th level, the fighter gets 18 feats (19 for a human). So he gets three, maybe four combat-oriented feat chains, which means he can pull off a couple of nifty moves in combat, as long as he's not fighting something with more than two legs, larger than him, or any of a number of other categories. Meanwhile, the druid is spending all his time as a dinosaur and eating Tokyo, the Cleric is resurrecting armies, and the Wizard is stopping time. And he's not just subpar to magic-users, either: the Monk is now an outsider, the Ranger can stand in broad daylight five feet from you and hide behind a single blade of grass so well you can't see him even though he's carrying on a conversation with you, and the Rogue can stand at ground zero of a nuclear explosion and not only survive, but be completely untouched. Meanwhile, the fighter... can hit things harder...
On_the_wings_of_TPK 05-23-07, 02:19 AM	Already been covered.
danielinthewolvesden 05-23-07, 02:44 AM	Well, the first problem is that he's comparing it to the fighter. The fighter is so underpowered it's laughable*, and thus the fighter should not be the yardstick with which to measure balance. .. Fighter is a fine well balanced class- for about 4 levels. But then again, at level 20 or so, nothing is going to be inna league with full spellcasters anyway. Duskblade can be broken if combined with BoNS or odd PrCs, but otherwise it is OK. A tad less powerful (read "survivable") than other warrior classes to start, and at the high end falls way behind the real full spellcasters. But in the middle it is pretty darn powerful. I want to point out here that every single class in the game (including the Bard) has been accused of being overpowered. Mostly they are wrong. (At very high level the full spellcasters- Wizard, Druid, Artificer, Cleric, Psion, etc- are overpowered.)
Sigst 05-23-07, 03:01 AM	Duskblades are a hybrid class (a hybrid between a fighter and sorceror more than a fighter and wizard IMO), and while such classes offer a great deal of options, and they can do many things well, they are unable to be truly OUTSTANDING in anything. Being able to fight well and cast spells looks great, and it does make your character more flexible, but you are still in one sense limited to doing only one of them at a time (yes, I know there are arcane channeling options but there are fairly strict rules governing that). On the side of magic, the sorceror outperforms the duskblade hands down, with more spells known, more spell slots, a better spell selection (the duskblades are limited to almost only offensive spells), and a faster spell progression. On the side of melee fighting, the duskblades reliance on light armor is something they will need to contend with. The duskblade winds up being a jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none. The duskblade is a lot stronger than a fighter/sorceror multiclass, virtue of slighty better hit points, better saving throws, better attack bonus, and spell progression at all levels instead of just the sorceror levels, but that multiclass option was really weak anyway. The duskblade class succeeds in making a viable warrior/mage combo on par with, but not exceeding, the power of the other classes. Sig
Kholai 05-23-07, 05:24 AM	The duskblade is a lot stronger than a fighter/sorceror multiclass, virtue of slighty better hit points, better saving throws, better attack bonus, and spell progression at all levels instead of just the sorceror levels, but that multiclass option was really weak anyway. The duskblade class succeeds in making a viable warrior/mage combo on par with, but not exceeding, the power of the other classes. It's a lot weaker than a fighter/sorceror multiclass, unfortunately. All those spellslots just don't compare with the sorceror gishes better spells at all levels, or their level 6-9 spells. Where Duskblades are using buffs, Sorcergishes are using Alter Self, where they're lording it up with their full BAB, sorcergishes are casting Heroism and starting to trip chain people. Their main advantage is that they don't have the same charge up time, they'll be just as good from 1-20. Full caster fighter/mages get exponentially better as they grow. They even hit new spell levels earlier.
tahngarth40 05-23-07, 06:18 AM	The character op guy summed it up pretty well. While duskblades are certainly cool, and a fun idea that doesn't require you to multiclass to fight and cast spells, it is quite a far leap to call them overpowered. Look at their spell list and horrible progression rate, look at their skills, look at the abilities they get (look closely), its really not all the impressive when you compare it with the plethora of other things you can do in the game, even in the exact same vein as the duskblade, in the end the fighter/wizard or fighter/sorc will do it much better.
Drag0nUL 05-23-07, 06:58 AM	I fully agree with Tempest Stormwind.Duskblade doesn't have much compared with a 'true' gish. A classical fighter/wizard/PrC build can: 1.Outcast the duskblade. You can get 9th level spells which are somewhat more powerful than the 5th level spells a duskblade has, and you also get a number of battlefield control spells and save-or-nasty-things-happen,which the duskblade lacks. 2. Outfight the duskblade. A well-built gish would be just a few points of bab behind the duskblade(but still above 15, so you still get 4 attacks per round), but alter self/polymorph, greater invisibility, haste, wraithstrike and/or tenser's transformation greatly outclass any of the buffs the duskblade has available.
Bopple 05-23-07, 07:39 AM	While duskblade is a fine standard class in itself, it's in no way better than a conventional gish. However, duskblade can be slightly better than a standard gish, when he is under about 5th lvl, because the gish suffers from multiclassing at that level.
Bob Loblaw 05-23-07, 09:07 AM	Rather than trying to convince your DM with tons of valid arguments, maybe you can try a different approach. Ask if you can playtest the duskblade. Work with the DM to make any changes that he feels would make the class more balanced for his campaign as they come up. He may have some valid reasons for the world he runs. This would allow you to play the class and him to see how things work. Let the DM know that you are willing to change characters if he deems the class to powerful after he has had a chance to see it in action. Ask him to give it a few levels before making his final decision. I'm not going to get into the class-wars here (I don't think any of the classes suck, there are too many variables that are campaign dependent to make sweeping generalizations). I do want to say that the duskblade is not meant to replace the fighter. It is meant to fill a similar, yet different role. Much like the barbarian, paladin, and ranger "replace" the fighter, the duskblade brings different options to the table.
Archangel62 05-23-07, 12:33 PM	:rotfl: If the DB isn't overpowered, I'm the archbishop of Canterbury.. So tell me, your holiness, how is the weather out there?
Drag0nUL 05-23-07, 12:39 PM	So tell me, your holiness, how is the weather out there? Nice one:D
LCD2YOU 05-23-07, 02:17 PM	It's his game. Don't like it? Use player's rule 0, get on your feet and leave. Want to whine to him about it? Time for him to ask you to leave. Nothing is more fun for a DM than to hear a player whine about some cheesey character they "just gotta play" as they don't want to or are just incapable of playing anything else.
Optimized_Commoner 05-23-07, 02:22 PM	So tell me, your holiness, how is the weather out there? An archbishop is "your grace", you're thinking of the pope. :P
IRememberCecil 05-23-07, 03:11 PM	It's his game. Don't like it? Use player's rule 0, get on your feet and leave. Want to whine to him about it? Time for him to ask you to leave. Nothing is more fun for a DM than to hear a player whine about some cheesey character they "just gotta play" as they don't want to or are just incapable of playing anything else. It's not the DM's game. It's a co-operative experience. The burden of proof, after Tempest's post, falls on the DM to prove that the Duskblade is overpowered. To think that the DM has final say is idiocy. The DM is no more holy than the players and has to back his choices up just like they do.
LCD2YOU 05-23-07, 03:20 PM	It's not the DM's game. It's a co-operative experience.Exactly correct. That means the DM needs to enjoy the game too. If I as the DM for the said player, am having no fun having characters from some book in my game, they don't get played in my game.The burden of proof, after Tempest's post, falls on the DM to prove that the Duskblade is overpowered.BS. No, it falls on the player to not whine and present evidence that the DB is not more cheesey classes meant for munchkins. As TS provided evidence for, the DB is a massive damage machine. Perhaps that fact is enough for the DM to say, "Uh no DBs as they are not going to go with the flavor of the campaign I have." If DBs do so much damage, the OP's DM is correct. Why are there fighters at all? Too many of the classes from the splat books and additional books just don't work in some campaigns. That is the way it is. Want to play but can't in that campaign? Leave.To think that the DM has final say is idiocy.More Bovine Scatology. The DM creates the game and some classes to not work in the DM's world or the DM has issues with certain classes. Hence, if the DM says they will not run any Psions, Duskblades or "Class X", they can say that. A DM has to have fun as well. The DM is no more holy than the players and has to back his choices up just like they do.No. If after the player presents their evidence that Duskblades are not so much cheese (I think they're Swiss myself) and the DM still says no, that's that. Afterwards the player has two choices: 1: Leave 2: Play the chacters the DM will allow Note: "Whining" is not an option. So, if I were to go into your DnD game and want to play a Jedi from D20 Star Wars, that's ok?
Tyraxus 05-23-07, 03:47 PM	??? If there's a thematic reason why a character can't play something (I remember a discussion a bunch of us had on this very issue, and one DM had a 20 year old campaign setting that said elves didn't exist; that's a valid thematic reason, while banning elven rangers because "everybody plays Legolas" isn't), then that's a perfectly valid reason. But if the DM is allowing Gishes of any kind in his world, then the Duskblade fits in that same place. If, as a DM, you're "not having fun" because someone is playing Class X, then you need to step back and look at why. Is it because they're making things too easy for the players and you like to challenge them? Then adapt, that's part of the DM's job. Is it because he's making mincemeat out of your precious NPC bad guys? Suck it up and remember that the players are supposed to win. I can accept theme reasons not to play something, but if you have A)arcane magic, and B)guys with swords in your world, then the Duskblade fits. You're right, if the DM is going to ban the Duskblade because "it doesn't fit my flavour because it does good damage," then the OP has the choices of playing something else or leaving. But the DM having the final say doesn't make him any less of an idiot. By the way, LCD2YOU, you keep invoking "the DM needs to have fun, too." Which is true. But not at the expense of the players' fun. If a player really wants to play something, especially something that can be recreated MORE EFFECTIVELY by some other process that you will allow, will it kill you to let him play the class he wants?
IRememberCecil 05-23-07, 03:48 PM	Exactly correct. That means the DM needs to enjoy the game too. If I as the DM for the said player, am having no fun having characters from some book in my game, they don't get played in my game. If you claim that the DM will have less fun with a Duskblade in his game, when a gish remains fully viable (he hasn't spoken out against those), you're deceiving yourself. BS. No, it falls on the player to not whine and present evidence that the DB is not more cheesey classes meant for munchkins. Tempest has provided evidence. The DM will accept it and make his decision based on that if he won't provide his own. Also, you seem to define "whining" as "disagreeing with someone and maintaining your position against him". You also act as if it's not the player's prerogative to try to convince the DM. That is bullcrap and it also prevents the DM from ever becoming better at what he does, assuming he isn't good already. Only sh*tty DMs don't listen to their players. It's the DM that's whining in this case. He also seems utterly irrational and drunk on his own power. Sounds like a sh*tty DM to me. More Bovine Scatology. The DM creates the game and some classes to not work in the DM's world or the DM has issues with certain classes. Hence, if the DM says they will not run any Psions, Duskblades or "Class X", they can say that. A DM has to have fun as well. Yeah, but the Duskblade is an archetype. The DM can also not create a world and say "See what I did here? Now play it or leave." The DM is a moderator, not the boss. It's his job to compromise with the players. No. If after the player presents their evidence that Duskblades are not so much cheese (I think they're Swiss myself) and the DM still says no, that's that. Afterwards the player has two choices: The bolded part is where you're being irrational. You can do two things: Give a number of logical fallacies and when proven wrong, start whining about how it's a different game for everyone (basically your average argument from people who think that the Fighter is fine); or: Not argue at all and remain ignorant. And if the DM says he'll accept evidence and then still says no after having it presented to him, without backing himself up, then the player has more than two choices: 1: Leave 2: Play the chacters the DM will allow 3. Beat up the DM. He deserves it for being an assh*le. 4. Kick the DM out of the group. Players generally do not, and should not tolerate bossy little freaks. The DM also has a few choices: 1. Compromise 2. Leave 3. Whine My personal favorite for a player: Kill and eat the DM, because obviously he didn't behave like a rational human being, and therefore must be okay to eat. Note: "Whining" is not an option. Whining is an option. The DM is doing it in this case. You wanna know my definition of "whining" in this case? Maintaining an irrational position. Fits the DM like a skin-tight latex suit.
DM Denubis 05-23-07, 04:07 PM	If Duskblades are too overpowered for him, what does he allow you to play? When will people learn that the most powerful classes are core? I can't remember the last time I heard someone say "My DM won't let me play a Cleric or a Druid!" but guess what? Both of them are just stupidly overpowered. Only thing I can tell you is to say, "Okay, Duskblade is overpowered. You win. But I really want that caster/swordsman combination feel. I think I'll play a Fighter 1/Wizard 6/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Eldritch Knight 7, alright?" If he doesn't get it, well, you're doomed. Also, make sure it's not just a flavor thing, as everyone else has said.
Karui_Kage 05-23-07, 04:26 PM	Yeah, but the Duskblade is an archetype. The DM can also not create a world and say "See what I did here? Now play it or leave." The DM is a moderator, not the boss. It's his job to compromise with the players. To be fair, the Duskblade is not so much an archetype as it does a good job combining two archetypes (the fighter and sorcerer). And yes, the DM is a moderator, but he *can* say that he doesn't want that class in his game. If the player wants the similar thing, he can multi-class a fighter/sorcerer. No, it won't be as powerful as the duskblade, but players who wanted that feel did it before, and they can do it again. That said, unless the DM is cutting out a bazillion classes, having one or two not available is nothing. I haven't been in a game with a player yet (well, maybe one who liked druids..) that would *only* play one class. And even with that one, it was a core class, so always ok (we never had a DM deny core, save for Paladins in Dragonlance). Personally, I don't mind the Duskblade. I don't think it's overpowered. If a DM thinks so, and wants to deny it, he has every right to. It's a single class, there are plenty others, and any player can get the same feel by multiclassing a fighter/sorcerer. If the player really loves the duskblade, and doesn't want to play anything else, then he doesn't have to play in that game. It's really that simple. :)
scienceman47 05-23-07, 04:32 PM	Hi, I'm from the CO board. If you feel that the duskblade is overpowered, very little is going to demonstrate to you that it isn't. Which is a shame, since math's on our side. In Magic terminology, the duskblade is a Timmy class. (If you don't know what "Timmy, Johnny, Spike" means, read up on it here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) and here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr220b).) It has lots of DAMAGE. That's pretty much all the entire class can ever bring to the table -- he's got a few self-only teleports that can make him truly powerful, and he works amazingly well with arcane strike, but he's still fundamentally a DAMAGE character. If the meter by which you judge classes is DAMAGE, then the duskblade is up there. (Far from the top by a long mark, especially since damage is NOT the key to victory except between about level 5 and 9 or so, but that's beside the point.) There's nothing wrong with it. Just remember, it's a Timmy. It's not like it's a Spike class (Druid, Cleric) or a Johnny class (martial adepts, strategic (non-damaging) wizards), which look beyond the big numbers and look more into what has a stronger effect on the game. ****. That's the problem. Last time we talked about it, I asserted that the duskblade doesn't the good spells, that its mainly damage, and a slow progression at that. His response is that they get all the damage spells, and that they can cast em in armor, and thats broken. I'm pretty sure I can't convince him of the weakness of damage spells. If the duskblade does inflict high damage, then I'm not gonna be able to play it. Does anyone have an example of a core class doing more damage, preferably before 10th lvl? (cause he hates over 10th, because it's broken)
scienceman47 05-23-07, 04:39 PM	Oh and one more thing. This thread is not called "Should I leave my DM or accept his ruling", and I'm not looking for your advice on the matter. I'm looking for proof that the duskblade is not overpowered. Whether I decide to continue gaming with my current DM is my own ****ing business. So kindly take it elsewhere.
Tyraxus 05-23-07, 05:00 PM	LCD2YOU, I'm curious, in your opinion, is there anything about sitting behind a DM's screen that makes you better than the other players or your opinions and beliefs more valid when behind said screen? Does being the DM make you a better person or better gamer? Because everything you're saying smacks of DM elitism ("I'm behind the screen and you're not, so I have the final say on everything and if you don't like it you can kiss my ass and go to hell."). scienceman, as far as damage, how about an 8th level wizard casting a couple of empowered scorching rays? That's 4 rays at 6d6 each, or 24d6, average of 84 (granted, that's over two rounds, but that's still an average of 42 damage per round which only requires touch attacks). Not much a Duskblade can do that measures up to that. For combat power, what about a Divine Power-ed Cleric (8th level) that goes to town with his weapon of choice on the BBEG's face and can still cast his divine spells in fullplate? A Duskblade isn't going to hold a candle there either.
Tempest Stormwind 05-23-07, 05:07 PM	Does anyone have an example of a core class doing more damage, preferably before 10th lvl? (cause he hates over 10th, because it's broken) You want that alphabetically? And does it strictly have to be spell damage, because the duskblade's gonna be channelling spells (physical+magical). Do we also have a particular opponent to compute it against, as that will change the equation somewhat -- especially if the opponent is highly mobile (mostly changes the equation infavorably for the duskblade but doesn't change much for casters). If he still won't allow it, I hate to suggest it, but play a wizard without a single damage spell whatsoever. DMs who have no grasp whatsoever of the game and believe that damage is the way to go... often stand agape when they realize their encounters can't do squat against your wizard, who will often have to stand back and NOT do anything (you conserve your power between fights and let your team tear the opponents to shreds as they stand crippled by your control effects). Then remind him: You're dealing less damage than a duskblade, so you must be balanced.
Tyraxus 05-23-07, 05:10 PM	If he still won't allow it, I hate to suggest it, but play a wizard without a single damage spell whatsoever. DMs who have no grasp whatsoever of the game and believe that damage is the way to go... often stand agape when they realize their encounters can't do squat against your wizard, who will often have to stand back and NOT do anything (you conserve your power between fights and let your team tear the opponents to shreds as they stand crippled by your control effects). Then remind him: You're dealing less damage than a duskblade, so you must be balanced. Tempest, I knew you were one of my favourite people on the CO board for a reason. This is so much better than the standard "Play a CoDzilla and ruin his campaign" advice people get a lot of times from other CO regulars.
Tempest Stormwind 05-23-07, 05:27 PM	Tempest, I knew you were one of my favourite people on the CO board for a reason. This is so much better than the standard "Play a CoDzilla and ruin his campaign" advice people get a lot of times from other CO regulars. Well, CoDzilla can do similar, but they typically turn themselves into melee damage juggernauts anyway. The point here wasn't JUST to convince him that the duskblade wasn't overpowered, it was to convince him that nondamaging effects can be significantly stronger. For instance... starting at level 1, look at every CR 1 or 2 monster in the monster manual. In particular, look at their Will saves (and remove those that are immune to mind-affecting effects; most of those are undead that the cleric can turn anyway). Note that you can have a DC 20 Color Spray by level 1 if you're in Faerun (Gnome illusionist with spell focus (illusion) and Shadow Weave Magic). If you'd rather keep your distance, you can do similar with Sleep (but more things are immune to that) or Grease. In all cases, you cast it once, whistle to the fighters, say "Go get 'im, boy!" and pretend to toss a bone toward the now-comatose and/or prone group of enemies you've taken out with an effective first-level save-or-die.
Gworraent 05-23-07, 06:34 PM	I'm playing a duskblade for RhoD and it truly isn't that great. I invested in the proper feats to allow me to wear heavier armor and it helps with my AC. I also took some feats that helped with all my ranged touch attacks. I have, at 10th level, HP in the 70's(I have a con of 17). I cannot dish out large amounts of damage to large amounts of people, but I fair well against a single opponent. If the wizard is being hassled and I'm busy with a fighter, I can 5ft step back and blast the bozos bothering my mage with a scorching ray. Even though I am the party's main fighter and I can't dish out large amounts of in ways that a barbarian could, buy the versatility available to me each and every round just makes it a joy to play.
IRememberCecil 05-23-07, 06:53 PM	Really? I haven't seen the DM of the OP respond here. Have you seen the OP's DMon this board yet? If so, where? No, but the OP didn't even mention anything about the DM other than him saying "Duskblade is overpowered!" Until something other than that is established, I'll have to assume he's running a generic game with generic D&D fluff. And has stated that the DB can dish out a lot of damage. Maybe that is not the style the DM has for their world. No, but until I know more, then I'll have no choice but to assume there is no particular element in which pure damage is unwanted. And if the DM drops the overpowered but says, "No, not in my campaign as I don't like the class", then what? I don't care. Unless he can provide a fluff (e.g. pisonics don't always fit in certain worlds) or de-facto balance (like the Planar Shepherd, which is just broken right out of the box) reason for banning the class, it will be allowed. He has provided no such reason to my knowledge. So I think scienceman should just tell him to shut up, quit being a monkey and let him play what he wants to play. It's his concept anyway. Whatever happened to butting out? They can try to convince him. However, it has been my experience that the "convincing"="whining" far too many times. Like your posts. My method is: "Shut up, quit being a monkey and let me play what I want. It's my concept, not yours." True and the best have learned to say "NO!". No, the truest and best have learned not to make a whole campaign setting without consulting their players. My grandmother once hand-knitted me an ugly-ass sweater (she did it because she had free time and wanted to mess with me (she's a comedian); I did not know that at the time). When she presented it to me, I immediately knew I didn't want to wear it, and I made it clear to her (she has a thick skin, so does everyone in my family; what I also made clear was that I didn't get the joke :(). Later she, decided to make me an article of clothing because I wasn't wearing anything of quality (who like Levi's anyways?) and made me another sweater. This time she made one in a color that I liked, but also with elements of her own judgement (fit, one color of the stripes (first time I had something that was part dark brown)). Damn that was an awesome sweater. Moral of this big ramble is, D&D is a co-operative game (much like my sweater was co-operative). The co-operation also extends to the establishment of the setting. Like I say, everyone gets a pawprint on the campaign setting. If you're part of the "Players=good, DMs=bad" crowd. I'm usually the DM myself, so I wouldn't exactly say I'm in that crowd. I do realize that I can't just make up some setting without talking to those I want to play it with and expect them to be happy right off the back. I don't give ultimatums. Sounds like a poor player who wants "new" and different and has forgotten how to roleplay to me. Irrelevant and totally fallacious (I'll let you guess once what fallacy you're committing). And in your parlance, DM compromise means total capitulation. No, co-operation and the DM realizing that the title DM doesn't make him emperor. Or like you demand and blame the DM and be the same. I'm not blaming anyone except those who don't accept reason. God I'd love to have him or you in my game and do that. Fight scenes involving me are always fun to watch. Or the players kick the whining play out for being such a cry baby. What is it with you and D&D fascism? "We are group. We make the rules and you must assimilate or get out." Sounds like a bunch of irrational wussies to me. Hiding behind each other to conserve their status as Anonymous. Good reason to kick whiney ass players out then, huh? Or kick the group as a whole. I don't want robots in my game. My games aren't democracies, they're anarchist states that exist within a certain boundary (fluff and real balance). You mena capitulate. No, I mean co-operate and compromise. Equally. the player to themselves so the whiney player can play DnD with themself, right? Using numbers as a way to establish control is a sign of wussiness. I wouldn't play with such a group in the first place. I look down on such establishments as they seem very, very unmanly to me (for some reason, they remind me of an Elven community). It would cramp my style. It seems to be more a player perogative DMs can easily whine. The only thing they can do worse than whine is seeking validation from other players. Uh, yeah. Good rational discussion here with you. What, you don't eat idiots? No, the DM is putting hteir foot down. Nah. I can pretty much hear his echoing voice whining "But... but the Duskblade is overpowered. I don't want you to play it." While scienceman adamantly states "No! The Duskblade is very much a fine class. Fits the gish archetype excellently. Now step aside and let me access my Player's Handbook II." Scienceman, talk with your DM with your head held high, your shoulders wide and your hands on your hips, and in a powerful, deep tone. That'll show him. Manliness, baby. Nothing beats it. Uh, no. Pffft. I think this definition is awesome (for this discussion only). Moral of my post: Strength in numbers is a weakness, not a strength. ... Wait. No, it's "Everybody gets a pawprint on the campaign setting, and whining is not whining if you're manly while doing it."
Count_Chumleigh 05-23-07, 07:05 PM	Cecil, as far as a DM's game goes, whatever he says, goes. If a DM doesn't want to allow Duskblades, he doesn't have to, and he doesn't have to provide a reason. Mind you, if he doesn't, he might be out a player or two, and it's just a little spiteful and dickish to ban a class without providing a reason, but I don't recall ever seeing in the rulebooks that DMs are required to be nice people. Personally, I don't like Duskblades, but that stems more from the name (it reminds me too much of my goth friends back in high school, not to mention that its class abilities don't have anything to do with dusk) and the default flavor-text attached to it (I also don't like elves, mainly because they embody to me the "Pretty=Good and Ugly=Evil" aesthetic, and I like my heroes and heroines to be ugly these days) than the mechanics. To be honest, I don't even know what spells Duskblades can cast or what this "Channeling" thing is; I don't care for the fluff, so I've ignored the crunch. Sounds like it might be fun to play one, and play him as a Timmy-type adventurer, though. Cheers, --Bob
IRememberCecil 05-23-07, 07:19 PM	Cecil, If you want to address me in that way, Atli would be an awesome way to go. Just a suggestion... moving on... as far as a DM's game goes, whatever he says, goes. That's DM elitism, which I, as a DM myself, don't buy. No matter how much work I put into my awesome, awesome gameworlds, I still owe them an explanation for any part of it that they question. It's a good thing that I'm a decent person, though, and only ban things based on fluff and real balance. If my players question a choice and explain to me how a concept could potentially fit into the campaign, then I'll implement it. If they really want to play something, it's on their hands to make it fit. No matter how good a DM I consider myself to be, I'm not keen on doing extra work for my players' happiness. If a DM doesn't want to allow Duskblades, he doesn't have to, and he doesn't have to provide a reason. Also smacks of DM elitism. I explained my position earlier about how the DM is not supposed to be a jerk and should work with his players. Mind you, if he doesn't, he might be out a player or two, and it's just a little spiteful and dickish to ban a class without providing a reason, but I don't recall ever seeing in the rulebooks that DMs are required to be nice people. The rulebooks don't require you do anything but moderate the game. Everything else is up to you. That's pretty much exactly the problem; people think that because they moderate the game and send waves after waves of monsters after their players, that they're entitled to something. The fact is that the DM's job is a hard one, and not exactly rewarding. Thinking you're entitled to something in return (abritrary power, for example) is the hallmark of bad DMs, because the fact is that unless you drew the shortest straw, you volunteered for it. It's like volunteering for work with the Red Cross and thinking you're entitled to rationing out the food ("Yeah, well I decided that one cup of rice is enough for you this week."). It just doesn't work that way. Personally, I don't like Duskblades, but that stems more from the name (it reminds me too much of my goth friends back in high school, not to mention that its class abilities don't have anything to do with dusk) and the default flavor-text attached to it (I also don't like elves, mainly because they embody to me the "Pretty=Good and Ugly=Evil" aesthetic, and I like my heroes and heroines to be ugly these days) than the mechanics. I'm not fond of the fluff either. But the fact is that the mechanics are excellent and if fluff can be somehow changed to fit a game world, there's no reason not to do it. Also, I don't like Elves either. Their total lack of testosterone and the wussiness of their way of living (basically artsy-fartsy hippies that place so much value on individual freedom, yet seek strength through numbers) To be honest, I don't even know what spells Duskblades can cast or what this "Channeling" thing is; I don't care for the fluff, so I've ignored the crunch. I see. That's a valid reason to me (fluff reason). If I wanted to play one in your campaign, I'd see if you were willing to let me alter the fluff to fit the setting.
Count_Chumleigh 05-23-07, 07:39 PM	It sounds like we're actually in agreement, then, Atli. To an extent, anyway. The rules don't require anything but moderation. Not being a dick, however, might. Cheers, --Count Chumleigh
Archangel62 05-23-07, 08:11 PM	An archbishop is "your grace", you're thinking of the pope. :P Ah, I'm evangelical lutheran so I wouldn't know the difference. But onto the main topic, the duskblade has a very pretty package but is a rather mundane core. It can deal a fair amount of damage, or, if built strategically, can be a bit of a combat controller. But I have to say that the thing is built mostly for damage and frankly damage simply isn't that great. I dunno, maybe I'm more used to tactical spell usage and good tactics and as a result see anything that says "I deal a lot of damage but not much else" as a little...well silly. The duskblade seems sort of like the diet gish.
Masker 05-23-07, 08:56 PM	A duskblade is a powerful base class. But it is certainly not overpowered. It gets some blasting spells, good attack bonuses and some armored casting. Flavour wise, unless the DM does not likes caster/warrior hybrids, a duskblade makes sense. Elves, for example, are famous for melding blade and spell together. Power-wise, the duskblade is not that great. He can channel spells through his blade, but that is not that better than a paladin's smite evil. He is restricted to light armor at the beggining and has d8 HD, which is good but not tank material, specially since they lack the best buffs. Certainly the gish combinations are stronger than the duskblade in almost all aspects. A DM may choose to not allow anything he wants. However, I have experienced (from both sides) that is conductive to a better player/DM interaction when the DM allows options to players, rather that restrict them, unless there is a reasonable motive.
ReaderOfPosts 05-24-07, 01:11 AM	What I noticed that's rather humorous is how both sides immediately polarize the situation with no added information. If I'm not mistaken, all that the original poster said was that he thought Duskblades were overpowered. The original poster said he wanted some evidence to attempt to convince his DM to the contrary. And then suddenly it escalated into a battle in between defending a stupid irrational DM and a damage obsessed munchkin character. And both of those elaborations were pure speculation-- yet they sure seemed to cause a lot of contention. My guess is the DM is just being conservative with a class he's unfamiliar with, and the player is trying to show him there's nothing to worry about. Naive? Perhaps. But it sure seems that posters just enjoy turning it into an ideological battleground between two manufactured situations that probably don't exist. *shrug
scienceman47 05-24-07, 03:10 AM	What I noticed that's rather humorous is how both sides immediately polarize the situation with no added information. If I'm not mistaken, all that the original poster said was that he thought Duskblades were overpowered. The original poster said he wanted some evidence to attempt to convince his DM to the contrary. And then suddenly it escalated into a battle in between defending a stupid irrational DM and a damage obsessed munchkin character. And both of those elaborations were pure speculation-- yet they sure seemed to cause a lot of contention. My guess is the DM is just being conservative with a class he's unfamiliar with, and the player is trying to show him there's nothing to worry about. Naive? Perhaps. But it sure seems that posters just enjoy turning it into an ideological battleground between two manufactured situations that probably don't exist. *shrug Actually, (apologies for leaving out information) he's not of a good opinion of the duskblade. It's half the fact that it's a gish, so it looks really strong, and half that a duskblade seems like it can get some nasty damage. We argued about it last week, but I'm not in strong possession of evidence to really back up my claim. He's pretty reasonable, with a few stubborn exceptions, so I've got a 50 percent chance of convincing him with sound evidence that they aren't overpowered and thus opening up that option come the next game we begin. The other half is if this is one of the issues he bites onto and never lets go of.
Kholai 05-24-07, 05:08 AM	Hmm.... Well, if he's familiar with a gish and thusly knows what they can do enough to be wary, that might work in your favour. The Duskblade spell list lacks polymorph-type spells, any spells that Abjurant Champion might really be good with, or a lot of the battlefield control spells that a gish heavy character might pick up. A lot of people thought the class broken when it first came out, then they saw the spell list. As others have suggested, offering to playtest it in various levels and situations might be a good way to go. Might I suggest a series of situations that a character may be able to deal with, such as: 1: You're stuck at the bottom of a pit, and need out. 2: Combat against a high SR creature. 3: Combat against a high AC creature. 4: Against a large group of weak creatures. 5: Spying against someone from afar. 6: Escape from a jail without your spell pouch. 7: Escape from jail with your spell pouch. 8: Dragon. Anything else your DM likes too. Offer similarly to compare to a wizard, a multiclass gish, and.... Maybe a barbarian. The fighter sucks too hard for a reasonable comparison.
Leo 05-24-07, 05:49 AM	http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0456.html Here's how exciting a nondamage based battle goes on. 2 people rolling a single dice per turn, with only 2 possible results: nothing happens or you instantly lose. It's not flashy, it's not fun, and if your Dm knows what's he doing it's not even effecient. Honestly, color spray and sleep are hardly that great when you face that zombie/construct/ plant/whatever mind immune campaign. Or simple hoards of enemies. Hoards and hoards of enemies. Let's see how many guys you can take whitout damage spells when you face an entire tribe of angry gnolls. And believe me, they're out there. Pure damage, on the other side, it's something no one is immune to. After all, if it has hit points, it can be hacked to death. Just bother geting a ghost touch weapon and not focusing in a single kind of element and you can take anything that gets in your way. As for the duskblade, it's a good class. But it demands several good stats, and runs out of ammo quikcly. But if the Dm says no, well, you gotta deal with it. He's not called dungeon MASTER for nothing after all. He must have his reasons. And it's not like there aren't more good classes to play.
Karla 05-24-07, 06:01 AM	To think that the DM has final say is idiocy. The DM is no more holy than the players and has to back his choices up just like they do. The DM does have the final say. Following an initial ruling, the player should have every right to present his case (out of game-time) and have it fairly considered by the DM. But at that point the DM has the right to say "Okay, I've listened to your argument and here's my final ruling on this." and expect the player to either accept it without further complaint or leave the game. The DM has the final say on the rules of his game. The player has the final say on whether he chooses to play there. That's how it works.
Karla 05-24-07, 06:20 AM	Having got frustrated with the possible paths open to a 9+ level fighter, I recently looked seriously into options for fighter/mages, especially now there are all these swift buffing spells which make mixing spellcasting and melee that much more workable. And I looked at Duskblade. But much as I liked the channelling, I found the restrictions on spell list and spell advancement just too confining compared with a traditional gish built with ftr/wiz plus some combo of Spellsword, Eldritch Knight or (especially!) Abjurant Champion. Duskblade probably has more options/power at low levels. But once into the prestige classes, the gish will rapidly overtake the duskblade in terms of spell level as well as having a far greater variety of spells (and one which increases with every new book!). As rightly said, the Duskblade has high initial "cool" factor and looks impressive at first glance. But to the "non-Timmy", there are more optimal or elegant ways of building a fighter-mage. So no, I don't think it overpowered.
Tytalus 05-24-07, 08:13 AM	Honestly, color spray and sleep are hardly that great when you face that zombie/construct/ plant/whatever mind immune campaign. Or simple hoards of enemies. Hoards and hoards of enemies. Let's see how many guys you can take whitout damage spells when you face an entire tribe of angry gnolls. And believe me, they're out there. And how do you deal that much area damage at level one (the level for which the color spray / sleep examples were used)? There's little that actually affects more opponents than those spells at that levels. In fact, the example gnome illusionist has a very good chance (95%) of completely taking out any gnoll in the area of effect. Of course, mind immune creatures are a limitation, but undead are generally taken care of by the cleric, and there's few constructs in the appropriate CR range for a level 1 party.
LCD2YOU 05-24-07, 08:38 AM	LCD2YOU, I'm curious, in your opinion, is there anything about sitting behind a DM's screen that makes you better than the other players or your opinions and beliefs more valid when behind said screen? Does being the DM make you a better person or better gamer? Because everything you're saying smacks of DM elitism ("I'm behind the screen and you're not, so I have the final say on everything and if you don't like it you can kiss my ass and go to hell.").No. It's no more elitism than, "I'm the player and if you don't do what I say I and the others are going to kick your ass." The only thing is I have a world. I tell the players upfront what it is. Basically it's low magic, City State and very Conan-esque. If a player agrees and then later wants to bring a character that has a blaster, battle armor and such or a high magicked character into the low magic world, that is not going to fly. I give the same courtesy to the person who sits behind the screen when I am a player. If I think they did something worng or was not correct, I tell them. If they say they know and that there are reasons for it, I push no further. If I don't like their ruling and I think it is because they are a poor DM, I leave the game. I've voted with my feet before.
Leo 05-24-07, 09:06 AM	And how do you deal that much area damage at level one (the level for which the color spray / sleep examples were used)? There's little that actually affects more opponents than those spells at that levels. In fact, the example gnome illusionist has a very good chance (95%) of completely taking out any gnoll in the area of effect. Of course, mind immune creatures are a limitation, but undead are generally taken care of by the cleric, and there's few constructs in the appropriate CR range for a level 1 party. Still color spray takes only 1D6 guys out. Wich may be 6. Or may be only 1. Burning hands is my choice, especially since it gets twice as powerfull at lv2, easily burning anything with just 1 hit dice. And it escalates quicly while sleep and color spray are stuck. Also, sleep is randomly useless against certain enemies like elves.
Zinegata 05-24-07, 09:07 AM	LCD2YOU, I'm curious, in your opinion, is there anything about sitting behind a DM's screen that makes you better than the other players or your opinions and beliefs more valid when behind said screen? Does being the DM make you a better person or better gamer? Because everything you're saying smacks of DM elitism ("I'm behind the screen and you're not, so I have the final say on everything and if you don't like it you can kiss my ass and go to hell."). Trust me when I say it will save you a lot of grief by just ignoring LCDYOU. As far as he's concerned, there's no other D&D but his D&D.
LCD2YOU 05-24-07, 09:36 AM	Trust me when I say it will save you a lot of grief by just ignoring LCDYOU. As far as he's concerned, there's no other D&D but his D&D.Thanks Zinegata. In a game that I am DMing, that is the case. In a game where I am a player, it is the DM's DnD and I game in it. If I don't like it, I leave. So you're any different?
Kesuk2k5 05-24-07, 09:43 AM	Now for a bit of a twist, imagine the DM finding a threat or challenge that the duskblade can't DAMAGE his way out of. Suddenly the duskblade is underpowered and the cleric's all sorts of broken. Isn't that how it usually goes?
Optimized_Commoner 05-24-07, 09:47 AM	Ah, I'm evangelical lutheran so I wouldn't know the difference. Pope has a bigger hat and a cooler ride.
Splendide 05-24-07, 09:53 AM	It sounds to me like its overpowered because it dominates party attention, and having one guy bragging about killstealing the whole time gets annoying. Every player likes to do a bit of damage, so when one guy does obscene damage, the others feel less worthwhile. Sure, mathematically a tank is important, but so what?
LCD2YOU 05-24-07, 10:02 AM	No, but the OP didn't even mention anything about the DM other than him saying "Duskblade is overpowered!" Until something other than that is established, I'll have to assume he's running a generic game with generic D&D fluff.Yes, but we don't know more than that. Still, the DM can listen to and still ban character classes they don't believe fits in their world.No, but until I know more, then I'll have no choice but to assume there is no particular element in which pure damage is unwanted.Perhaps. Until we get info from the DM directly all is just a guess.I don't care. Unless he can provide a fluff (e.g. pisonics don't always fit in certain worlds) or de-facto balance (like the Planar Shepherd, which is just broken right out of the box) reason for banning the class, it will be allowed.Not if the DM has their hands full, has the classes already balanced out and more. That's it, perhaps the campaign is more role-play, from the DM's POV than who can do the most damage.He has provided no such reason to my knowledge. So I think scienceman should just tell him to shut up, quit being a monkey and let him play what he wants to play. It's his concept anyway. Whatever happened to butting out?Like what we should do and let scienceman and his DM hash it out? Character concepts are fine, unless they are not a fit for the DM's world. A Character Concept that has a Mech and Powered Armor is not a fit in a Sword and Sorcery game.My method is: "Shut up, quit being a monkey and let me play what I want. It's my concept, not yours."Good for you. But other DMs have every right to say, "It doesn't fit in the world I developed." Hell, the DM can also say, "I don't know enough about the class and I don't have the books". Or the DM can just say, "I read it, I don't like the class, no there are no Duskblades in this world."No, the truest and best have learned not to make a whole campaign setting without consulting their players.Partly true. But the add-ons should still fit the world the DM designed, not go and mangle it.I'm usually the DM myself, so I wouldn't exactly say I'm in that crowd. I do realize that I can't just make up some setting without talking to those I want to play it with and expect them to be happy right off the back. I don't give ultimatums.So if a player wants a character with a Mech in your world you let them? If you've ever said "No", you've given an unltimatum. Sometimes the DM says "No". The player can give their own ultimatum and leave. That is the way of things. It is not "one size fits all".Irrelevant and totally fallacious (I'll let you guess once what fallacy you're committing).Oh, let's hear what you think the fallacy is. If you think that, fine. I'll worry when I have nothing better to do.No, co-operation and the DM realizing that the title DM doesn't make him emperor.And when players act like spoiled children who want it their way..... Character Concpets are great. Not all fit in everyone's world. Sometimes the Player has to realize that.I'm not blaming anyone except those who don't accept reason.And reason is "Do only what the players want"? I don't see that as reason but as DMs must capitulate to player demands or they are a bad DM. Some of the absolute worst DMs I've seen allow anything and everything the players wants and have a hodge podge of a crap game.Fight scenes involving me are always fun to watch.Sorry to hear that. I am of the school that fighting solves nothing save who gets to bully the others into thinking things their way or get trounced again.What is it with you and D&D fascism?Wait, aren't you the one who stated that the players kick the crap out of the DM? So what is that then? Beating up the DM does what?"We are group. We make the rules and you must assimilate or get out."Heh. Who's the one commiting fallacies here now? Sounds like a bunch of irrational wussies to me. Hiding behind each other to conserve their status as Anonymous.And this board is what?Or kick the group as a whole. I don't want robots in my game. My games aren't democracies, they're anarchist states that exist within a certain boundary (fluff and real balance).Good for you. I'm sure your mom's proud of you.No, I mean co-operate and compromise. Equally.So what is the player to do to compromise here? If the DM has to given in, what is left to compromise on? I'm waited with anticipation here.Using numbers as a way to establish control is a sign of wussiness. I wouldn't play with such a group in the first place. I look down on such establishments as they seem very, very unmanly to me (for some reason, they remind me of an Elven community). It would cramp my style.Good for you.DMs can easily whine. The only thing they can do worse than whine is seeking validation from other players.And the same goes for players who get on a board to do the same or look to other players to kick the crap out of the DM because one guy feels "compromise" is having th eDM do what they want. I understand this concept of "compromise" now with you. Do what you want or agree with and it's a compromise. Good for you.What, you don't eat idiots?Nope, they're full of ****.Nah. I can pretty much hear his echoing voice whining "But... but the Duskblade is overpowered. I don't want you to play it." While scienceman adamantly states "No! The Duskblade is very much a fine class. Fits the gish archetype excellently. Now step aside and let me access my Player's Handbook II."Which a DM can say no to. if they want. The player can leave if they want. Problem solved.Scienceman, talk with your DM with your head held high, your shoulders wide and your hands on your hips, and in a powerful, deep tone. That'll show him. Manliness, baby. Nothing beats it.Good advise. If the DM still says no after you present them with the evidence, you can play a class they have in their game or you can leave.Pffft. I think this definition is awesome (for this discussion only).I am so glad you think that it is so.Moral of my post: Strength in numbers is a weakness, not a strength.So all that talk you stated about the OP and the other players getting together and beating up the DM is what now? I would like to hear.... Wait. No, it's "Everybody gets a pawprint on the campaign setting, and whining is not whining if you're manly while doing it."Uh, ok.
IRememberCecil 05-24-07, 10:10 AM	In a game that I am DMing, that is the case. No, it's not. When you introduce a campaign setting to your players, it's not yours anymore. It's the group's campaign setting. Unless you think authors have the final say on the interpretations of their books (which is utterly wrong, any author and anyone who has taken any courses in literature will tell you that). You may create the fluff and aim to keep it, but you do not gain arbitrary power. It's like this: You agree to DM. DMing is a lot of work, and not very rewarding either. This does not mean you can assign yourself arbitrary power over your players/characters as a "paycheck". It sucks unless you love to DM. Deal with it. In a game where I am a player, it is the DM's DnD and I game in it. If I don't like it, I leave. See my previous comment. I'd like to add that this is the kind of absolutist, elitist thinking that I look down upon. If you leave, then you deserve to. It's your loss for not trying to talk to the DM. So you're any different? Yeah, I'm better.
LCD2YOU 05-24-07, 10:45 AM	No, it's not. When you introduce a campaign setting to your players, it's not yours anymore.So what about this thing about "co-operation" you keep on pontificating about then? The world is there for the players to explore. They can do whatever they want in the world. The only caveat is that the denzeins who live in that world, the NPCs, will have a say on what they like and don't like about the actions of the players and their PCs. I don't tell them where to go. I have adventurers for them whereever they go. I do not tell them their character "can't do that" but I will tell them "it could be very difficult, fatal, attract the worng kind of attention" and such. So the world is their to explore. Their characters can do what they want as I take no moral outrage or pass judgement on their characters. The actions and reactions they face are part of a reasonable progression of what goes on in the world, not my own predjudices.It's the group's campaign setting.Am I not part of the group? The compromise I make with the players is simple: I may not allow certain classes or items into the world. What they get is the freedom of what they have to do whatever they want in the world. Unless you think authors have the final say on the interpretations of their books (which is utterly wrong, any author and anyone who has taken any courses in literature will tell you that). You may create the fluff and aim to keep it, but you do not gain arbitrary power.Like players who demand things and expect to get it?It's like this: You agree to DM. DMing is a lot of work, and not very rewarding either. This does not mean you can assign yourself arbitrary power over your players/characters as a "paycheck". It sucks unless you love to DM. Deal with it.And I do. And I love it. And the players who continue on love it. Not everyone is ready for all games. You love chaotic anarchy. In a game where it is ridgid you'd be hating it and leave. So are they wrong for having it ridgid or are you wrong for wanting it to be chaotic. Or is it that the game is not your style and that perhaps you should find another group and they another player? Isn't that a compromise as well?See my previous comment. I'd like to add that this is the kind of absolutist, elitist thinking that I look down upon. If you leave, then you deserve to.Good for you. Ettiquette by IRC. I'm sure it would be a best seller.It's your loss for not trying to talk to the DM.(Note: This was another post to Zinegata, not to Cecil, but I fear he'll take things to make a point, however short lived, instead of actually doing the right thing) Read again where I do. I know you want to only answer some parts you think you'll gain traction with so you'll snip quote from posts to other people and take things out of context to make your point. So Cecil, I answered everyone of your points. I kept it to just your post and through in no others when answering EVERYTHING that you posted. I see that you haven't the same guts to do mine.Yeah, I'm better.(Note: Again this was to Zinegata, not to Cecil) Better? At what? "Looking down on things"? Pontificating? Using your shoulders as a seat cushion? Being able to stay awake in a methane rich, oxygen deprived environment? Saying your way is the best? I certainly doubt it has anything to do with DnD. Zinegata got it wrong. It seems there's Cecils' DnD which is superior to all others. Hint bud, it ain't.
IRememberCecil 05-24-07, 11:02 AM	Yes, but we don't know more than that. Still, the DM can listen to and still ban character classes they don't believe fits in their world. Their power only applies if they use it reasonably. If they hand out arbitrary rulings based on personal opinion ("I don't like it"), they may be stepping on the players' feet. In such cases, they're the ones that can leave. Not if the DM has their hands full, has the classes already balanced out and more. That's it, perhaps the campaign is more role-play, from the DM's POV than who can do the most damage. If he's that meticulous and inflexible, he should ask the players in advance what concepts they're interested in playing next and try to integrate those into the setting (or make the players integrate it, changing the fluff and maybe even some mechanics). If he's creative (which is pretty much a prerequisite for being a DM), then it will be easy as pie. It also precludes any real clashes in fluff that might have come along later on. Like what we should do and let scienceman and his DM hash it out? Character concepts are fine, unless they are not a fit for the DM's world. A Character Concept that has a Mech and Powered Armor is not a fit in a Sword and Sorcery game. I never went as far as to state something like this. An example of my case would be: A player wants to play a Ninja in a setting that's supposed to happen in, say, a Cityscape. Now, the class itself is mechanically sound, but the fluff... not so much. Instead of him being an assassin or spy, he could be an illusionist thief that learned to apply his (not very powerful) magic powers into the only real thing he's interested in (stealth). Good for you. But other DMs have every right to say, "It doesn't fit in the world I developed." Hell, the DM can also say, "I don't know enough about the class and I don't have the books". Or the DM can just say, "I read it, I don't like the class, no there are no Duskblades in this world." The first one is one of the two reason I consider valid: Fluff. Granted, fluff can be adapted (and the adaptation should be dumped on the player, for fairness to the DM). The second one is an excuse. Classes are generally only a page or two long, and if the DM doesn't want or can't read the class, then giving the player a little credit might not be a bad idea (here I'm assuming that the class fits into the setting; if it doesn't then see no. 1). The third one is the DM exerting his personal opinion on his player. He's butting in. In any game I was a part of, he would immediately be given two choices: Stop butting in or pick up a character sheet, we're playing a different campaign (my group is not keen on kicking people out; we consider it inhumane and exclusionist (and we have never encountered anyone that was anything of a real problem)). Partly true. But the add-ons should still fit the world the DM designed, not go and mangle it. Yes, and I say dump the work on the player. If he wants to play some class that doesn't completely work for the setting, good for him, let him, but he has to adapt it. So if a player wants a character with a Mech in your world you let them? Only if I'm playing in a world that somehow allows it to be done. I once had a high-magic setting lined out where everything had the potential to be invented. As I think about it, golems with pits in which a character could sit and control it wouldn't have been problematic. But any player that asks me for a mecha in any of my usual campaign setting usually gets pats on the back for an excellent joke. No outrageous thing I've been asked for has ever been serious. If you've ever said "No", you've given an unltimatum. Sometimes the DM says "No". The player can give their own ultimatum and leave. That is the way of things. It is not "one size fits all". What about working together instead of an assh*le contest? Oh, let's hear what you think the fallacy is. If you think that, fine. I'll worry when I have nothing better to do. It seemed like you were committing the Stormwind Fallacy. It seemed implied in the sentence. And when players act like spoiled children who want it their way..... Character Concpets are great. Not all fit in everyone's world. Sometimes the Player has to realize that. It depends on how unadaptable it is. Mechas, generally no. Ninjas, yes (but again, the player has to do the work). And reason is "Do only what the players want"? I don't see that as reason but as DMs must capitulate to player demands or they are a bad DM. Some of the absolute worst DMs I've seen allow anything and everything the players wants and have a hodge podge of a crap game. I think the problem with those DMs was probably that they didn't try adapting things to their games or that the players were just outrageous. Sorry to hear that. I am of the school that fighting solves nothing save who gets to bully the others into thinking things their way or get trounced again. Exertion of authority through physical force says nothing about my other abilities, though, so don't automatically assume that I'm a dumb jerk (this is pre-emptive). But fighting does solve some things; generally things that have been agreed upon to be solved by fighting. If you want to solve something else through fighting, you'd have to apply enough violence to eliminate resistance (like the Romans did). I don't do that. Beating up the DM does what? Provides amusement and either makes the DM go away or become reasonable. Heh. Who's the one commiting fallacies here now? I don't know... both of us? And this board is what? A bunch of irrational-to-rational people discussing D&D (or real life religious or political figures). Nobody's trying to conserve any status here. I also removed my anonymity (to those people that read this thread, at least) by stating my real life name earlier. For the record, I'm not seeking validation. I get along based on my own merits. Good for you. I'm sure your mom's proud of you. If that was sarcasm, I'll have to ask you to apologize. So what is the player to do to compromise here? If the DM has to given in, what is left to compromise on? I'm waited with anticipation here. If there is no reason the class can't fit into the world, then the DM is rightful in butting out. If there is a reason (if the class fits in the setting like a ninja among crusaders; or if it's mechanically unbalanced), then the player's compromise is that the class gets modified... and he's doing the work until the DM decides that the class can fit. Good for you. It would be good for you to try that game. You'll find that a lot of people are flexible if you just try talking with them (yes, even DMs are willing to work with their players without resorting to ultimata). And the same goes for players who get on a board to do the same or look to other players to kick the crap out of the DM because one guy feels "compromise" is having th eDM do what they want. I understand this concept of "compromise" now with you. Do what you want or agree with and it's a compromise. Good for you. I see now that you don't get it. Which a DM can say no to. if they want. The player can leave if they want. Problem solved. No, this creates more problems. Now the player has to find another group and the group may have to find another player. And if they give in, then they may be sacrificing some of their fun because the group was too selfish to let him play what he wanted to. In both cases, the DM and/or the group is the bad guy. Good advise. If the DM still says no after you present them with the evidence, you can play a class they have in their game or you can leave. Or the DM can GTFO. Only reasonable people are allowed to be DMs. Handing out arbitrary rulings based on personal opinion cramps the players' styles. So all that talk you stated about the OP and the other players getting together and beating up the DM is what now? I would like to hear. I never said anything about getting together.
IRememberCecil 05-24-07, 11:21 AM	Like players who demand things and expect to get it? In my opinion, it depends on what they demand. I'm not saying the DM should allow psionics just because they're balanced, because they may stand out like a proud nail, but a Ninja with modified fluff may very well fit. You love chaotic anarchy. In real life, yes. In my games, I put on wide, but strict boundaries within reason (If I don't like a class, I don't care about my own opinion; if a player wants to play it, then I butt out, as long as it can be adapted to the setting). In a game where it is ridgid you'd be hating it and leave. Depends on the level of rigidity. I'm a sweet-talker (believe it or not; violence comes in only a few cases), so I might be tempted to try to implement some of my free and anarchic ways into the group. So are they wrong for having it ridgid or are you wrong for wanting it to be chaotic. Or is it that the game is not your style and that perhaps you should find another group and they another player? Isn't that a compromise as well? I live in Iceland, where you have to make do with what you got. If I were to find a group in America, for example, I'd be outraged if the group even considered kicking me out. Good for you. Ettiquette by IRC. I'm sure it would be a best seller. I'd think so too. (Note: This was another post to Zinegata, not to Cecil, but I fear he'll take things to make a point, however short lived, instead of actually doing the right thing) Your fear was justified. Read again where I do. Sorry about that. I know you want to only answer some parts you think you'll gain traction with so you'll snip quote from posts to other people and take things out of context to make your point. If I don't address something, consider it a concession. If I snip-quote, I do it to remove parts I don't think are relevant. If I misquoted you, then I'm sorry. Point me to those parts and I'll readress them. Better? At what? "Looking down on things"? Pontificating? Using your shoulders as a seat cushion? Being able to stay awake in a methane rich, oxygen deprived environment? Saying your way is the best? I'm overall a very excellent individual. Though, that part of the post was, in fact, a humorous self-shot. I made fun of myself and the arrogance I've been showing in this thread. I certainly doubt it has anything to do with DnD. True. It has nothing to do with anything. It seems there's Cecils' DnD which is superior to all others. Hint bud, it ain't. Of course it is. Why would I think otherwise? My conclusion: I think we have two different methods of compromising, based on where we live (I live in a small country where players are hard to come by, and DMs even more so, so I've learned that everything can't just be "my way or the highway". Here, at least). It would be good material for a sitcom, but in real life, it would cause serious problems.
Tempest Stormwind 05-24-07, 11:45 AM	Still color spray takes only 1D6 guys out. Wich may be 6. Or may be only 1. Burning hands is my choice, especially since it gets twice as powerfull at lv2, easily burning anything with just 1 hit dice. And it escalates quicly while sleep and color spray are stuck. Also, sleep is randomly useless against certain enemies like elves. Of all of that, only your Sleep argument is valid. Do you even read the rules? Color Spray affects all creatures in its area. The effect that they get hit with depends on their individual HD, not their total HD, and no dice are rolled except to figure out duration. If the creatures fail their Will saves, they are dead. If they're 2HD critters (or less) like a lot of CR1 opponents are, you coup de grace them. If they're 3 or 4 HD critters, they're stunned and blind, meaning easy picking for the party rogue (who gets sneak attack damage against them). If they're 5 HD or more (yes, OR MORE) Color Spray merely stuns them for one round -- which opens them up to more sneak attacking, or lets the fighter trip and slaughter them. Basically, if the enemy is still alive after a Color Spray (which effectively wastes several of their actions right there), they still have to waste more if your team is competent. Oh, and all of this works quite nicely since you cast a spell and then the entire team has fun tearing the soft targets to shreds. Infinitely more fun for everyone at the table than "I cast a spell and they all fall down, next?". Burning Hands, on the other hand, hits the same area as Color Spray... with 1d4 fire damage, Reflex save for half. Note that most monsters in the CR 1-5 range have... yep, you guessed it... higher Reflex saves than Will saves. Thus, you've done 2.5 damage (or 1.25 damage) to the same area you could have DESTROYED with a color spray. Tell me, how many CR 1 opponents have 2 hit points? It's a good thing monsters fight worse when they take HP damage... oh, wait, no they don't. (When Burning Hands gets more damage, you're also gaining access to better spells, too. Hence why I'm looking strictly at level 1 here). Hmm... cripple multiple opponents, including those with far more HD than your own, so they can all get easily and trivially killed by your team without risking their own hides... or pinprick them with trivial damage that won't even slow them down or dramatically speed up how quickly you finish the encounter? My point holds.
DM Denubis 05-24-07, 11:47 AM	Guys, this might sound crazy, but... How is what you're discussing even marginally close to what the original poster asked about? He didn't come here to complain about a crappy DM who won't let him be a Duskblade, he came here for hard evidence that Duskblade is not overpowered. What you are doing is not only thread hijacking to the max, but also extremely childish. People have different viewpoints. You can't change that. Clearly, you two have some different opinions about the DM/Player compromise. We get it. Now, can we return to the original topic? If you really feel the need to pointlessly argue a bit more, there's a PM function. Your DM says they're overpowered because they deal too much damage, right? We've already been through the whole non-damaging effects are stronger argument, and you said he wouldn't buy it. Fair enough, a lot of people don't buy that argument. But there are plenty of things that deal way more damage than a Duskblade. Sure, you can channel spells through a sword. But a Frenzied Berserker built for accuracy/power attack will put you in your place ridiculously fast. A Swashbuckler/Fighter/Dervish with average stats and gear is a damage monster. A decent charger build is pretty much unopposed, especially now that in Complete Champion, Barbarian can get pounce at level one. Combine in some power attack and leap attack goodness, and you're squishing just about everything. Duskblades are good damage dealers, but they're not so good that the other melees need to worry about their jobs. This is to say nothing of what a true gish can do in comparison.
LCD2YOU 05-24-07, 12:00 PM	Their power only applies if they use it reasonably. If they hand out arbitrary rulings based on personal opinion ("I don't like it"), they may be stepping on the players' feet. In such cases, they're the ones that can leave.If the DM tells the players the world is like so, low magic, few clerics, etc., the DM has already set the conditions. If a player knows they are getting into a "Knights of the Round Table" game and they want to play a Devil Hunter sometime later on, that is something for another campaign. In more cases that not, it is only one player, or one player who has brow beaten another into agreeing with them that is the issue. That is why that one player if they are truly unhappy should leave. If the DM and the other players are content, then that is not an issue for them. the "lone gunman" will eventually ruin the game for everyoen is what I've seen too many times.If he's that meticulous and inflexible, he should ask the players in advance what concepts they're interested in playing next and try to integrate those into the setting (or make the players integrate it, changing the fluff and maybe even some mechanics).Yup. That is what I've been saying all along. Still, there are reasons not to allow a class. If he's creative (which is pretty much a prerequisite for being a DM), then it will be easy as pie. It also precludes any real clashes in fluff that might have come along later on.They can be the most creative and best DM in the world and they can still say "no".I never went as far as to state something like this. An example of my case would be: A player wants to play a Ninja in a setting that's supposed to happen in, say, a Cityscape. Now, the class itself is mechanically sound, but the fluff... not so much. Instead of him being an assassin or spy, he could be an illusionist thief that learned to apply his (not very powerful) magic powers into the only real thing he's interested in (stealth).But what I'm saying is that you've just given an ultimatum to a player who wants to play a mech pilot and have a mech in your game. See, your example of a Ninja is easy to do. A few fluff changes in who the Ninja is, how the "clans" are more like very honorable(?) street gangs and such is a snap.The first one is one of the two reason I consider valid: Fluff. Granted, fluff can be adapted (and the adaptation should be dumped on the player, for fairness to the DM).Which done by a player can be a cure that is worse than the disease.The second one is an excuse. Classes are generally only a page or two long, and if the DM doesn't want or can't read the class, then giving the player a little credit might not be a bad idea (here I'm assuming that the class fits into the setting; if it doesn't then see no. 1).Not always. Sometimes the DM is busy. I am going to re-cert very soon. I am planning to change jobs as this one I'm on for the past 3 years has been a contract position. I have a wife, 3 kids, a house and a life outside of DnD. Sometimes I take my time for what is a game that I like but a game none the less.The third one is the DM exerting his personal opinion on his player. He's butting in. In any game I was a part of, he would immediately be given two choices: Stop butting in or pick up a character sheet, we're playing a different campaign (my group is not keen on kicking people out; we consider it inhumane and exclusionist (and we have never encountered anyone that was anything of a real problem)).Again, sometimes a DM can say no to classes they don't like or they don't beleive will fit. Even if after the player does all the work and the DM still doesn't think it will fit well, the DM can say no. That is the job of the DM to judge. If the judgement is nyet, nada, nein, no way Jose, not in this lifetime, that is what it is.Yes, and I say dump the work on the player. If he wants to play some class that doesn't completely work for the setting, good for him, let him, but he has to adapt it. Only if I'm playing in a world that somehow allows it to be done. I once had a high-magic setting lined out where everything had the potential to be invented. As I think about it, golems with pits in which a character could sit and control it wouldn't have been problematic.See, right there, I am not a fan of high magic worlds. While I possibly be able to play in one of your games, if it was "high magic", doesn't matter whose, I doubt if I'd like it. So as a player if I decided to play only later to want to play something different that doesn't mesh, should I make you change? I don't think so but if I feel that strongly, I'll leave.But any player that asks me for a mecha in any of my usual campaign setting usually gets pats on the back for an excellent joke. No outrageous thing I've been asked for has ever been serious.Lucky you and I mean that.What about working together instead of an assh*le contest?I've said that. The player asks the DM first if they can bring in a new class. The DM can say three things: 1: Sure 2: WTF is that? I'll have to see it first. 3: No way in hell So sometimes the answer will still be "No" even after the player does everything from #2.It seemed like you were committing the Stormwind Fallacy. It seemed implied in the sentence.Ok.It depends on how unadaptable it is. Mechas, generally no. Ninjas, yes (but again, the player has to do the work).See, I don't have too much against Ninjas, no matter the setting. I found they can be adapted easily to most any setting with a high urban feel. But you have just given an ultimatum here IRC, "No" is your answer to Mechs.I think the problem with those DMs was probably that they didn't try adapting things to their games or that the players were just outrageous.Maybe they have and still found it not to work.Exertion of authority through physical force says nothing about my other abilities, though, so don't automatically assume that I'm a dumb jerk (this is pre-emptive). But fighting does solve some things; generally things that have been agreed upon to be solved by fighting. If you want to solve something else through fighting, you'd have to apply enough violence to eliminate resistance (like the Romans did). I don't do that.I go to game, not pick a fight. I want to fight, I go and do some boxing.Provides amusement and either makes the DM go away or become reasonablePerhaps. Perhaps it is just a way to make people see things your way through physical violence and threats.I don't know... both of us?You think?A bunch of irrational-to-rational people discussing D&D (or real life religious or political figures). Nobody's trying to conserve any status here. I also removed my anonymity (to those people that read this thread, at least) by stating my real life name earlier.Careful. I know one who was given death threats. No, not by me.For the record, I'm not seeking validation. I get along based on my own merits.As do I.If that was sarcasm, I'll have to ask you to apologize.Yes and no. Yes it was sarcastic, no as I think your mom is proud of you. I don't know many moms who aren't proud of their kids. Those who aren't, well, they ain't parents.If there is no reason the class can't fit into the world, then the DM is rightful in butting out.Sometimes the DM doesn't think it is right for the world and that's enough, if after they are given the facts.If there is a reason (if the class fits in the setting like a ninja among crusaders; or if it's mechanically unbalanced), then the player's compromise is that the class gets modified... and he's doing the work until the DM decides that the class can fit.A modified class is really just a combo of two classes. So why wouldn't a duel class work as well?It would be good for you to try that game. You'll find that a lot of people are flexible if you just try talking with them (yes, even DMs are willing to work with their players without resorting to ultimata).Starting off with an ultimatum is bad. After presented with the relavent facts then they can still say "No" and stick with it.I see now that you don't get it.I do get it. I don't agree with it.No, this creates more problems. Now the player has to find another group and the group may have to find another player.Sometimes it is best to cut your losses, on both sides, than to be miserable where you are.And if they give in, then they may be sacrificing some of their fun because the group was too selfish to let him play what he wanted to.See, it comes down to the individual to you. It comes down to the group for me. Perhaps the group will find their fun heightened as they don't have to put up with a guy who wanted it their way all the time.In both cases, the DM and/or the group is the bad guy.Again, the individual is exhalted here and the group the bad guy. Sometimes, many times, it is the exact opposite.Or the DM can GTFO. Only reasonable people are allowed to be DMs. Handing out arbitrary rulings based on personal opinion cramps the players' styles.Yup, handing out rulings for arbitrary decisions is bad. Also, wanting no, demanding things based on arbitrary whims are likewise bad and cramps the DM's and other players' styles.I never said anything about getting together.What you actually said on the other page is this:3. Beat up the DM. He deserves it for being an assh*le. 4. Kick the DM out of the group. Players generally do not, and should not tolerate bossy little freaks.So you did not say that the OP should get with the other players to kick the crap out of the DM, just the OP should do it. What you did say was that the players along with the OP should kick the DM out of the group. I got kick ass with kick out mixed up. My bad.
LCD2YOU 05-24-07, 12:08 PM	Guys, this might sound crazy, but... How is what you're discussing even marginally close to what the original poster asked about?Quiet you. when I want logic, I'll watch the original Star Trek. You're correct f course. I was being harsh and I did go off on a tangent. What I'm saying is a DM can still ban a class even if there is all the evidence in the world that says it is a balanced class and things are fine with it. Such a DM of course is a loser, but that is why a player can vote with their feet and leave. I usually though come down on the side of the DM.
Karui_Kage 05-24-07, 12:39 PM	I will agree with both points. The DM should try to incorporate classes the player wants into the game. The DM does not have to allow certain classes if he doesn't want to (if there is no magic, then he doesn't need to allow casters. If he doesn't think a Duskblade is balanced, he doesn't have to allow it). The player can feel free to argue about this, and state his case. The DM should listen, and allow it if the argument proves sound and the class is, in fact, not too overpowered. He still has final say, and can still disallow it. Just like the DM cannot tell the player what to do in the game, the player cannot tell the DM what to allow. If that were the case, why stick to wotc approved classes? Why not find some crazily overpowered class online and use that? The DM doesn't have a say, after all. Even if the player can't have one class, there's a multitude of others. Like I said before, I've never met someone who was stuck on only *one* class so much that they got physically violent when they couldn't have it. Unless the DM is being an a** and just banning classes arbitrarily, he'll probably have a decent reason, and a decent player can accept that reason. Both parties move on. My two CP.
Doodle 05-24-07, 01:12 PM	Hrm... My original post seems to have been eaten. I actually wanted to address the original posters concern about proving that the Duskblade is over/underpowered. For my example I will compare the duskblade to an equal level fighter. They characters will be basically identical except that the fighter will have 2 higher strength than the duskblade allowing for the fact the fighter doesn't need as much int as the duskblade. We will arm both characters with a greatsword and assume that as magic becomes available, they equip each other more or less identically (they both get magic armour, magic weapons, etc.) so these items can be ignored. Levels 1 - 2: The fighter takes Weapon Focus and Power Attack. Because of his 2 higher strength, he has a +1 bonus to hit advantage over the Duskblade. If he puts this +1 bonus into Power Attack with a 2handed weapon, he does 2 points more damage per attack than the Duskblade at the same attack bonus. There are no feats the Duskblade can take, that the fighter cannot, that increase melee damage so we will ignore his feats. The fighter also has better hitpoints and better AC. Advantage: Fighter Levels 3-5: The Duskblade gains Arcane Channelling and channels a Shocking Grasp, gaining 3.5 damage per level (average of a d6), maxing out at 17.5 bonus damage. The fighter picks up weapon specialization at level 4 for another +2 to damage. But the duskblade is outdamaging him by 12.5 per hit. Advantage: Duskblade Levels 6-8: Both characters gain an extra attack, but the Duskblade can only channel on a standard action. The Fighter picks up melee weapon mastery and greater weapon focus at level 8, gaining a further +3/+2. To keep their attack bonus equal, the fighter dumps that extra +3 to hit into power attack, netting him an additional +6 damage. The duskblade can only channel on a standard action, so he gets one attack, while the fighter gets 2. We will decrease the damage on the fighters second attack by 25% to account for the lesser chance to hit. Fighter: 1st Attack: 2d6+1.5(extra strength) +2WS +2MWM +8(PA) = 19.5 2nd Attack: 75% * 19.5 = 14.5 Total: 34 Duskblade: 2d6 + 5d6 = 24.5 Difference: 9.5 damage (in favour of the fighter) Note: actual damage for BOTH will be higher based on strength/magic weapon/etc. but we are assuming they are equally outfitted so all that matters is that the fighter will do 9.5 more damage. There is some question about whether or not you can Arcane Channel a ranged touch attack. If you can, the Duskblade would switch to Scorching Ray doing: 2d6 +4d6 +4d6 = 35 Damage Difference: 0.5 (or basically nothing) Levels 9 - 10 You said you were stopping at level 10. At level 9 any half intelligent Duskblade takes Arcane strike and at this point will be outdamaging the fighter. Advantage: Duskblade So, as you can see, from a pure damage perspective the two classes are about equal over the first 10 levels. I am of course ignoring extra feats (you will notice that the fighter and duskblade have the same number of unused feats using the above examples, so you could give the exactly the same feats if you wish). And I am ignoring other benefits/negatives (duskblades gain some minor utility spells and ranged spells, fighters get better armour, hitpoints, and over time more feats). Me.
Omnirahk, half-Rahkshi 05-24-07, 03:32 PM	Doodle makes a good point. I think that's the first time someone works with a pure fighter without saying it sucks. That said, he forgot to take into account the fact that a duskblade can't wear heavy army (which the fighter probably is), so the fighter can hit easier. Therefore he could power attack for even more. Moreover, the duskblade has lower HD than a fighter, so he's both easier to hit and more fragile. Which would tip the scales further in favor of the fighter. Lagging behind the fighter? We must've miscalculated. ;)
Masker 05-24-07, 03:45 PM	Not to mention tht the Duskblade must burn spells each round to keep his damage output high. And energy damage, from all sources, can be resisted or saved against. However, the duskblade makes up this with better ranged options than a fighter and the armor and weapon issues can be covered with the right feats (Battlecaster and Somatic Weaponry). I do not consider the duskblade is overpowered. It is just an easy way to play a gish for those who don't know how to optimize or do not like a character with multiple PRCs (the best gish builds usually have more than one PRC). They trade some power in that regard for ease of use. They will not outpower a pure melee class focused on damage or outcast a real spellcaster, but they are versatile and useful party members at all levels.
nightwyrm 05-24-07, 04:18 PM	They're pretty decent for people who wants to play a gish at all levels. While the optimized gishes may be more powerful in the long run, if the campaign starts at level 1 and is gonna stop at around level 10, playing a standard fighter1/caster6/PrCs is gonna suck.
Tytalus 05-24-07, 04:31 PM	Note that you can have a DC 20 Color Spray by level 1 if you're in Faerun (Gnome illusionist with spell focus (illusion) and Shadow Weave Magic). Really? DC = 11 (base, 1st level spell) + 4 (18 INT) + 1 (Gnome) + 1 (Spell Focus) + 1 (Shadow Weave Magic) = 18.
bob_the_great 05-24-07, 06:02 PM	Back to the OP... It's hard to blame your DM for balking at the armored casting. He's just following the original thinking of the game desingers. In 3.0 there wasn't any armored (arcane) casting. Armored casting was thought of as too powerful. The games designers realized that it wasn't as powerful as they feared and introduced light-armored casting for the bard, which they ended up giving to the hexblade, warmage (which even got medium armor), beguiler, some PrCs, etc. As 3.5 has advanced they've decided that casting in heavier armors isn't overpowered, as evidenced by the duskblade and the Races of Stone PrC runesmith, which gets full casting in heavy armor. In a hexblade thread a developer mentioned this, saying that at the time they feared armored casting and purposefully built the hexblade weakly for that reason. He suggested getting ideas for improving the hexblade by looking at a duskblade, which was designed without the armored casting concern hanging over it. I really think your best option is to convince him to move forward with WotC rather than cling to old ideologies. The least he can do is give it a try.
ReaderOfPosts 05-24-07, 07:56 PM	Actually, (apologies for leaving out information) he's not of a good opinion of the duskblade... Mkay. I guess it just kind of bothers/amuses me that its become an argument about what the player/DM should deal with and an argument about the unalienable rights of being a DM/player rather than actually discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the duskblade. Not that its an atypical situation, it just seems... stupid. The duskblade never really impressed me. Then again, none of the baseclasses blending two standard roles have (except perhaps beguiler). I guess the only argument I really have is that gishes are inferior to straight casters (most of the time) and the same is true for duskblades. Compared to Tome of Battle martial classes (which I think are a more competitive balance point for martial classes), the duskblade doesn't seem scary in the least.
Zinegata 05-25-07, 09:38 PM	Thanks Zinegata. In a game that I am DMing, that is the case. In a game where I am a player, it is the DM's DnD and I game in it. If I don't like it, I leave. So you're any different? Absolutely. Because while I'm not forcing my D&D style on anyone, you see it fit to beatdown and verbally abuse anyone who doesn't fit your grand vision of D&D. Again, to argue with you is useless, and it's good to see others are noticing :P
Sphyre 05-26-07, 02:17 AM	****. That's the problem. Last time we talked about it, I asserted that the duskblade doesn't the good spells, that its mainly damage, and a slow progression at that. His response is that they get all the damage spells, and that they can cast em in armor, and thats broken. I'm pretty sure I can't convince him of the weakness of damage spells. If the duskblade does inflict high damage, then I'm not gonna be able to play it. Does anyone have an example of a core class doing more damage, preferably before 10th lvl? (cause he hates over 10th, because it's broken) at 9th level, a cleric can kill something with slay living, completely negating the use for HP - while in fullplate. Last time I checked the goal of doing damage is usually to kill something, so just look at the HP of the target, and the cleric is doing the equivilent of that amount of damage in one attack, and in fullplate, with a shield too. Anyway, your DM needs to understand that this game isn't balanced. Different characters excel at different things. Duskblades excel at doing damage. They are a one trick pony. Fighters, on the other hand, are good at doing a lot of things when you're below 10th level (In fact, they are exceptional in the first 4 levels). Any fighter who uses disarm, trip and the like will be situationally much more powerful than the duskblade who can't turn his opponent into a crying prone unarmed shmuck without a bit of luck.
navar100 05-26-07, 02:55 AM	A lot of people thought the class broken when it first came out, then they saw the spell list. If they can find it. ;) :P
navar100 05-26-07, 03:00 AM	Still color spray takes only 1D6 guys out. Wich may be 6. Or may be only 1. Reread the spell. It's been changed to a 15's cone area effect. I forget too lots of times.
GSonic7 05-26-07, 10:48 PM	I found it to be a nice little 1-level dip for a 12 int sorcerer in a low-mid power campaign. It has complimentary proficiencies (all but simple weapons, which sorcerers have), and you get a few other nice things (there are 7 extra cantrips, though ATM I know 13 cantrips and use maybe 3 per day). That's about it other than HP, fort save, and BaB, but you could pick up a few skill points in skills you otherwise wouldn't be able to get. For some reason, that seemed incoherent to me, but it's late here and I've got a bad cold, so whatever..
Father Dale 05-27-07, 05:16 PM	A number of things: First, the Duskblade is not overpowered. I'm playing in a campaign now (Dragonlance Price of Courage) and one of the PCs has a 16th lvl straight Duskblade. His damage output falls significantly behind that of the Fighter/Knight of Solamnia with a greatsword, and even falls behind that of the Scout (with greater manyshot) and the War Mystic (mystic is a DL class that casts spontaneoulsy like a sorcerer but gets spells from the cleric list.) He does best debuffing opponents along with damaging them (touch of idiocy is a popular one with him). And he has a lot of movement aiding spells, so he can get into position rapidly. His AC is pretty good but not astounding (mid 30s generally at lvl 16). And he has decent hitpoints and saves. He's a pretty solid character, but he doesn't outshine anybody in this campaign. Like I said, the Scout tends to kill faster. Second, compared to other classes, the Duskblade comes up short. A simple Paladin/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight will be far more powerful than a similiar level duskblade. While the Duskblade can do the nice channeling trick, which works strongest only in certain situations, the EK has a wealth of options open to him. Polymorphing, flight, teleporting, powerful AoEs battlefield control, self buffing, etc... And the one trick that really helps the Duskblade shine (quick casting) can now be duplicated with ease by an EK with the Rapid Metamagic feat and Quicken Spell feat. (Or with the alternate sorcerer class ability in PHB II). Toss in Spellsword or Abjurant Champion levels, or even Sacred Exorcist, and the EK improves by leaps and bounds. Third, sure a DM can say No I'm not going to allow that in my campaign. But a good DM will have a good reason why, and it should usually be themetatic concerns more than anything else. Balance shouldn't be an issue unless the class is likely to significantly outshine the rest of the PCs, or would cause issues where those issues are not wanted (i.e. a Frenzied Berserker with poor Will save, or a blackguard pc with a party of good pcs might not be wanted by many DMs). But for a DM to ban a class simply because he thinks it is "too powerful" is absurd. As a DM, I have never encountered this. Why? Because I control what the PCs fight and the situation they engage in, and I control the experience and treasure given out. A properly planned encounter can be appropriately challenging for any party...because the DM can plan it. I have the entire world at my disposal, so one PC or a group of PCs cannot dominate the world unless I let them. And furthermore, anything the PCs can do...I can do better. So banning classes for being "too powerful" makes no sense to me, unless we're talking about completely ruining any balance among the PCs themselves.
maharai23 05-28-07, 12:46 AM	Well, the first problem is that he's comparing it to the fighter. The fighter is so underpowered it's laughable*, and thus the fighter should not be the yardstick with which to measure balance. That being said, the Duskblade is a rather powerful class. It's supposed to be, it's a Gish. But (IIRC, I don't have my PHBII on me atm), it doesn't get the truly horrible wizard spells a real Gish can get, and is limited to direct damage spells. This is fine: it makes the DB a force in combat, but it's limited to light armour early, and only medium armour later (barring burning a feat), and I think you still have to have a hand free for somatics even without a spell failure chance, so sword/board isn't that viable a tactic (barring another feat for Quick Draw, and then you still draw an AoO in melee), regardless of the picture in the book. Couple that with the d8 hit die, and you realize it's most definitely not a tank. Best-case, a well-played Duskblade makes a good 5th man as a flank-harrier, but the worst case (a badly played one) sucks party resources to rez him so many times it's not even funny. * - To everybody who says the fighter is perfectly fine: At 20th level, the fighter gets 18 feats (19 for a human). So he gets three, maybe four combat-oriented feat chains, which means he can pull off a couple of nifty moves in combat, as long as he's not fighting something with more than two legs, larger than him, or any of a number of other categories. Meanwhile, the druid is spending all his time as a dinosaur and eating Tokyo, the Cleric is resurrecting armies, and the Wizard is stopping time. And he's not just subpar to magic-users, either: the Monk is now an outsider, the Ranger can stand in broad daylight five feet from you and hide behind a single blade of grass so well you can't see him even though he's carrying on a conversation with you, and the Rogue can stand at ground zero of a nuclear explosion and not only survive, but be completely untouched. Meanwhile, the fighter... can hit things harder... Unless your fighter has feats designed for taking on larger creatures, of course. As for humanoids, it's hard to beat a low-mid level fighter in terms of tanking and outcombatting opponents. Sword and Axe Style (Complete Warrior), Improved Trip, Improved Sunder(disarm), and Dual Strike, for instance. You charge, dual strike, take the free trip, and then either sunder, disarm, or whack again. Now, if you have combat reflexes (likely, seeing as how many feats you have), you get an AoO when your opponent gets up, when he draws a weapon (or retrieves one), and, when he moves, if he doesn't attack. If he does his one hit? Then you full attack next round and repeat. Yes, fighter is best used to round out other classes. Yes, it can be pretty powerful on its own. Still, a level of barb, or a couple levels of ranger, or the like, usually benefits the class more than pure fighter.
maharai23 05-28-07, 01:02 AM	at 9th level, a cleric can kill something with slay living, completely negating the use for HP - while in fullplate. Last time I checked the goal of doing damage is usually to kill something, so just look at the HP of the target, and the cleric is doing the equivilent of that amount of damage in one attack, and in fullplate, with a shield too. Three words: "Made my Save." Then what is it? 3D6 + 9, or 19-20 damage. Alternately, Death Ward. Then I voluntary fail the save, and watch as the spell is completely negated. There are no saving throws to getting beat in the face. Compare to a 9th level fighter (20 Str), average of +15 to +16 to hit, 2 handed weapon, charge, power attack for 5. Uses leap attack on the way in. Now that's 2D6 + 22 damage, without specialization or magic items. If you dual strike instead, you're looking at (longsword + battle axe, oversized 2 weapon fighting) 2D8 + 7 + trip (High Sword, Low Axe, Comp. Warrior), + followup attack 2D8+5, and that's on a charge without power attack. Plus, now your opponent is prone. There are a lot of ways to build a fighter. No, a fighter won't take a cleric's spot. But a cleric won't take a fighter's spot, either.
Sphyre 05-28-07, 01:23 AM	Three words: "Made my Save." Then what is it? 3D6 + 9, or 19-20 damage. Alternately, Death Ward. Then I voluntary fail the save, and watch as the spell is completely negated. There are no saving throws to getting beat in the face. Compare to a 9th level fighter (20 Str), average of +15 to +16 to hit, 2 handed weapon, charge, power attack for 5. Uses leap attack on the way in. Now that's 2D6 + 22 damage, without specialization or magic items. If you dual strike instead, you're looking at (longsword + battle axe, oversized 2 weapon fighting) 2D8 + 7 + trip (High Sword, Low Axe, Comp. Warrior), + followup attack 2D8+5, and that's on a charge without power attack. Plus, now your opponent is prone. There are a lot of ways to build a fighter. No, a fighter won't take a cleric's spot. But a cleric won't take a fighter's spot, either. :rolleyes: Read the post I was replying to. I was responding in context. Everything you have said here is completely out of context no matter how valid or invalid it may be. Imagine, if I were to make my post as a general statement, worded in a way that no one could take it out of context, then my posts would be as long as a legal document to cover every contingency of someone who wants to take me out of context... a bit of a waste of time if you ask me... The poster said that it was overpowered to cast spells in armor, I gave an example of something else that disproved on the premise that the DM beleives clerics are balanced. Of course, if the DM beleives clerics are imbalanced, and duskblades are imbalanced, and wizards are imbalanced, and everything under the sun is imbalanced... he's probably right, because imbalance is the name of the game. It's whether you embrace the imbalance and have fun, or whine, moan, and complain about it, that really matters. - Although, in response to what you said... "There is no saving throws to getting beat in the face." The main defenses against magic are SR and saving throws. The main defenses against physical harm is AC and HP. You have ways to increase both, just like you have the way to increase a save. The only difference between the "rolling" of a save and "rolling" to hit are who's doing the rolling - how well you do both are subject to how specialized at doing that you are. Thusly, you can correlate that Missing an attack roll is to physical attacks as making a saving throw is to magical attacks. They vary slightly, as in making a saving throw often entails a diminished effect, while missing an attack always nets no damage (and sometimes adverse effects if you're trying to disarm someone without the improved disarm feat)
Drag0nUL 05-28-07, 01:14 PM	There are no saving throws to getting beat in the face. Compare to a 9th level fighter (20 Str), average of +15 to hit If I get my AC above 36, your fighter would be pretty much useless(5% chance to hit doesn't sound too encouraging). Let's take a ECL 9 human fighter 1/ Wizard 5/ Eldritch knight 3 Using only mage armor, shield and polymorph to erynies I get an AC of 31(+5 dex, +4 mage armor, + 8 natural. +4 shield). This gives your fighter a 25% chance to hit me. Add mirror image and displacement and things start to get nasty for the fighter; and this is core only(non core replace 1 level of eldritch knight with abjurant champion and mage armor with greater luminous armor and you get an AC of 37) and without any items whatsoever. You might argue that a character can similarly boost his saving throws,but as a spellcaster I have alternatives(I can target your weakest saving throw, boosting them all to high level is very hard to do without severely gimping yourself in other areas; os use spells that allow no saving throws). As a fighter, there is no way I know of to avid rolling against AC.
Nephlite 05-28-07, 01:40 PM	Three words: "Made my Save." Then what is it? 3D6 + 9, or 19-20 damage. Alternately, Death Ward. Then I voluntary fail the save, and watch as the spell is completely negated. There are no saving throws to getting beat in the face. DR and AC. Also Blurr, displacement are effectively saves versusd being hit. Compare to a 9th level fighter (20 Str), average of +15 to +16 to hit, 2 handed weapon, charge, power attack for 5. Uses leap attack on the way in. Now that's 2D6 + 22 damage, without specialization or magic items. So +12 hit (+2 from charge) +20 damage from power attack + 7 Str +7 weapon=average damage 34 damage. There are a lot of ways to build a fighter. No, a fighter won't take a cleric's spot. But a cleric won't take a fighter's spot, either. Unless he has Divine Metamagic up. and Nightsticks than he took the Fighters job and still has his own: That is referred to as eating your cake and still having it (most people get caught up in "having your cake and eating it" but that is easy).