Basically: Are duskblades overpowered in the hands of someone who can be trusted not to twink, cheese, and minmax?
If they are not overpowered, how shall I present the argument to my DM?
Off-Topic
Of course, you could just switch to 4E... just kidding!
The problem some DMs have with them is the fact they're generally way better than some core options early on. There just aren't that many non-prestige classes out there with two good saving throws, full BAB, average hit points, warrior EQ proficiency, decent spellcasting, AND good class features. (Sudden Quicken 1-4/day? Yes, please!) Oh, and Int-based spontaneous casting means they're not struggling for skill points like other melee types, as well.
The DM is probably a "warriors are not allowed to get nice things" kind of person.
The problem some DMs have with them is the fact they're generally way better than some core options early on. There just aren't that many non-prestige classes out there with two good saving throws, full BAB, average hit points, warrior EQ proficiency, decent spellcasting, AND good class features. (Sudden Quicken 1-4/day? Yes, please!) Oh, and Int-based spontaneous casting means they're not struggling for skill points like other melee types, as well.
Agreed. The reason they look better than the fighter and other core melee types is that they are...but that's because core melee types are underpowered. They're not that much better, or at least enough to make them "broken," but they are definitely superior in some respects, and they should be given the power (or lack thereof) of most melee classes. If you have any full casters in your party at all, your DM should be worried about them, not the duskblade.
The reason they look better than the fighter and other core melee types is that they are...but that's because core melee types are underpowered.
But this is the real problem with 3e, in some respects. If the core game isn't representative of how the game is balanced...just what is considered balanced? Helps explain the huge disparity between the Hexblade and the Duskblade (one of the first and one of the last expasion core classes).
I'm playing 4e, but still monkey with 3e rules, and currently think that it's better to nerf the casters than boost the warriors. But that's just me.
- Can wear medium armor with no arcane failure, and even use a heavy shield, by level 7.
- Full BAB and two good saves (Fort. and Will), and will usually have (after bonuses) a +5 to +7 on their attack rolls by level 4.
- Level 3 lets them become high damage-dealers to a single foe.
- Level 5 lets them get Quick Spell, which is when you get max. damage for Kelgore's Fire Bolt. Who wouldn't want a free action to do 5d6 fire+thunder damage, and THEN swing for another 1d8+5d6 damage a second time on the same foe?
- Level 13 lets them channel a spell per attack, where-as before it was just one spell per "attack step," whether or not you had more than one attack a turn.
- One word: Enervate. Why yes, I'll take (up to) 2d4 level drain plus normal weapon damage. Oh, what's that? You're at level 0 now, and my weapon damage killed you? Oh well, now you die twice. And you get that at level 13, and I'm assuming that you don't have a bonus 4th level spell slot for having high INT.
The biggest two reasons are at level 3 (spell damage + weapon damage when you have a good chance to hit is big for that level) and level 13 (two Enervates, high damage, and you can still cast another spell if the third attack hits will spell death for most things that can't resist the Enervates).
And let's not get into the druid class.
If I were you, I would suggest showing examples of what Wizards and Clerics can do with Core only. Heck, show off a Battle Cleric/Wizard build, showing how not only can they do the same thing, but do it better.
Most DM's see armor and arcane spell casting and think some cardinal rule of balance is broken. DM probably thinks the warmage is overpowered. He won't know until he allows one in the game.;)
Title kinda says it all. Of course I disagree or I wouldn't be posting this.
Basically: Are duskblades overpowered in the hands of someone who can be trusted not to twink, cheese, and minmax?
If they are not overpowered, how shall I present the argument to my DM?
Put together a reasonably optimized gish; you don't even need to go overboard. Show the gish to your DM next to the duskblade, and point out how easy it is to get a character with better than 3/4 BAB and nearly full wizard casting.
Alternatively, play a core-only druid and make him weep for the days when all you wanted was a duskblade.
Totally off-topic, but I love how folks talk about how overpowered the Cleric is by name-dropping 9th-level spells that cost a very noticeable amount of XP. :embarrass
Actually, that's a good point. How do command, silence, bestow curse, divine power, slay living, harm, holy word, and earthquake strike you?
I'm playing 4e, but still monkey with 3e rules, and currently think that it's better to nerf the casters than boost the warriors. But that's just me.
It's as worthwhile to boost melee types as it is to nerf casters, and in fact I'd advocate for both--if you use only/mostly classes from Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and the Expanded Psionics Handbook and allow feats/PrCs/etc. from the other books, I've found that you get a remarkably balanced game with very little extra effort required.
Actually, that's a good point. How do command, silence, bestow curse, divine power, slay living, harm, holy word, and earthquake strike you?
They don't--strike him, that is; most are area spells, and most of those that aren't don't require attack rolls. ;)
Totally off-topic, but I love how folks talk about how overpowered the Cleric is by name-dropping 9th-level spells that cost a very noticeable amount of XP. :embarrass
Actually you don't have to pay XP some times.
- Level 13 lets them channel a spell per attack, where-as before it was just one spell per "attack step," whether or not you had more than one attack a turn.
This is incorrect. Level 13 lets them use a spell to affect multiple targets, not one target multiple times. Each foe you strike with your full attack is affected, but striking a foe more than once doesn't mean it is affected more than once... I'm just saying... :P
Ask your DM for other examples of Overpowered classes, its only fair that he list off other things he believes are too powerful. It will also help us hone your argument for the Duskblade.
Best of Luck!
Actually, that's a good point. How do command, silence, bestow curse, divine power, slay living, harm, holy word, and earthquake strike you?
Now we're talking.
I just get bothered when capstone effects are pointed to as the prime reason why a class is OP.BTW, command is just fine - close range with a 1 round casting time means you pretty much earn the effect. The others are definitely strong, though.
Now we're talking.
It bugs me, too--I just wanted to make sure no one was arguing that clerics aren't more powerful than, say, a duskblade.
BTW, command is just fine - close range with a 1 round casting time means you pretty much earn the effect. The others are definitely strong, though.
The spell isn't overpowered, but it is powerful. For instance, you can use it to disarm or trip, and your chances of it succeeding (assuming a decent Wis) are much better than a low-level fighter's chance of accomplishing the same trick.
Flame strike is all kinds of overpowered considering the cleric is a SUPPORT caster.
Eh, tell that to the blast-alicious 4e Cleric.
In 3e, this spell is really just a shorter-range, smaller blast-radius consecrated fireball.The spell isn't overpowered, but it is powerful. For instance, you can use it to disarm or trip, and your chances of it succeeding (assuming a decent Wis) are much better than a low-level fighter's chance of accomplishing the same trick.
I dunno; you are blowing a spell slot and taking an inordinate amount of time (1 round = "I'm casting a spell on this guy...hopefully he won't leave range or kick me in the face before I complete it!").
BTW - Apologies to the OP for seriously derailing the thread...
I don't think I would ban the class, but I'd say they are generally more powerful than their core colleagues. No doubt about that.
I've never DM'd one. Some of the guys in my group had a side game going. The DM said he would never allow another Duskblade. One specific example of why was how the character chanelled Shocking Grasp (at 5+ caster level) into an attack multible times. Having a character dealing as much damage as that threw the encounters off balance. He was the most potent PC without even getting very clever about it.
I don't think I would ban the class, but I'd say they are generally more powerful than their core colleagues. No doubt about that.
The duskblade would to have been 13th level.
What does the DM he expect the damage output 13th level PC should have? That gives the Dusklade a possible +15d6 on 1 foe. A Rogue would get a possible +14d6 with SA on one foe and Wizard's empowered Fire ball would do 19d6 on a gaggle of foes.
Darn those high level PCs! ;)
- One word: Enervate. Why yes, I'll take (up to) 2d4 level drain plus normal weapon damage. Oh, what's that? You're at level 0 now, and my weapon damage killed you? Oh well, now you die twice. And you get that at level 13, and I'm assuming that you don't have a bonus 4th level spell slot for having high INT.
Enervate is not exactly a problem... at level 13, you can easily assume you'll be fighting extremely few enemies that don't have at least 13 hit dice - so all you'll manage most of the time will be bumping them down to 8 HD. Now that's an accomplishment.
Roll up a Druid. Take Natural Spell. Proceed to stomp down his campaign setting as a giant, firebreathing dinosaur who can can heal itself, spontaneously summon allies and clear entire forests at will, and bring along your similarly powered running buddy.
Then turn to him and say this; "Wow. I bet you're glad I'm not doing +3d6 Fire damage once a day as a Standard action, huh?"
This is incorrect. Level 13 lets them use a spell to affect multiple targets, not one target multiple times. Each foe you strike with your full attack is affected, but striking a foe more than once doesn't mean it is affected more than once... I'm just saying... :P
People keep saying this, but the RAW does not say this! I am sitting here with the book open at this moment! What difference does it make if he attacks multiple targets or the same target? The same amount of effort and focus is utilized as he swings his weapon. In fact, you'd think it'd take more effort to turn around and swing at enemies you werent facing before. We've always allowed my Duskblade to hit the same target multiple times after lvl 13. It hasnt broken our game yet. Not even close.
If I am getting attacked by multiple opponents and choose to waste my whole volley of damage on one target, thats my prerogative. Sure, against a single BBEG its vicious, but by this point, most BBEGs are practically immune to any of the damage effects anyway.
People keep saying this, but the RAW does not say this! I am sitting here with the book open at this moment! What difference does it make if he attacks multiple targets or the same target?
In support of this, the exact quote:
At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round.
1) It never says anything resembling "You may only deal this damage to a given target once" or the like.
2) If you strike someone in melee, he's your target. If you smack him again, he's your target again. "Each target" does not mean "Each different target."
The duskblade would to have been 13th level.
Sorry. I worded that incorrectly. He could use the spell multible times per day and add 5d6 to each successful attack as a 5th level Duskblade.
you basically divide the world into those people you have hit in the round and those you haven't hit. All in the first category then get the spell's effect.
That's my interpretation also.
It's a full attack action. And it says any spell, not spells.
If he still says no, deal. But ask him to make a list of banned things so that you don't mess up a build.
sorry, but ultimately its the DM's game. There are a few things I don't allow, but mostly to avoid cliche's. (Drow being the biggest problem with my players ;) )
This is something you can indeed read both ways. If I hadn't known about the "hit everyone once only"-interpretation, I would have likely read it the same way you did, but now "The spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round" would indicate to me that you basically divide the world into those people you have hit in the round and those you haven't hit. All in the first category then get the spell's effect.
Let's say you're facing an orc and a human opponent, and you have three attacks per round. You cast a touch spell and full attack: First you hit the orc, then the human, then the orc again. Is the orc not your target the second time? He's a target you hit in melee combat that round, yet according to your interpretation he isn't affected--which would make sense if it said "Each creature may only be affected once" or "You make attack a given creature only once" or something like that, but it doesn't. Chain lightning, the most commonly-used spell that lets you pick a number of targets, says "no target may be struck more than once"--but that states a limitation explicitly.
Another scenario: A wizard casts a spell on your fighter's sword that says "For the duration of this spell, each target you hit in melee takes an extra 1d6 fire damage." You walk up to an orc and hit it three times. In your interpretation, does the orc take +1d6 fire damage or +3d6 fire damage...and if it's +1d6, why would it function any differently from a flaming weapon? Simply because it says "each target you hit" instead of "each hit"?
While this may seem overpowered, think of it this way: you're burning multiple spells to try and kill one monster quickly. Depending upon your DM and how many encounters they like to run, this can be nothing or a whole lot of dumping when you have another fight down the road.
I will admit; hitting with max damage on a bastard sword, then channeling and additional 12d6 fire damage into the fow with ONE strike sounds like a lot (and it usually is), but good DMs will find a way to make the fight challenging for you. The absolute BIGGEST weakness for Duskblades in battle is their movement speed. Medium armor drops it down to 20 ft. A Sleet Storm or other such difficult terrain locks you down pretty well (assuming you don't just Dimension Hop or Dimension Door to your foe, burning up your few spells/day to do so).
It says:
"...the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round."
At the end of the turn, I've hit target A 2 times out of three attempted attacks and target B once out of two attempted attacks.
Did I hit target A? Well, since I've hit him, the spell affects him.
Did I hit target B? Yes, I did hit him, so he's affected by the spell two.
Both targets A and B have been affected by the spell because I hit them this round. Each target I hit this round has been affected by the spell, as per the above quote.
People keep saying this, but the RAW does not say this!
Yes it does.
I am sitting here with the book open at this moment!
So am I.
What difference does it make if he attacks multiple targets or the same target?
Because it doesn't say the spell affects your target each time you hit. It just says that the spell affects targets you have hit. It doesn't say it affects it once for each time you hit it. If you have hit, the spell affects the target; that is all.
The same amount of effort and focus is utilized as he swings his weapon. In fact, you'd think it'd take more effort to turn around and swing at enemies you werent facing before. We've always allowed my Duskblade to hit the same target multiple times after lvl 13. It hasnt broken our game yet. Not even close.
None of that actually has anything to do with the rules, I'm afraid.
1) It never says anything resembling "You may only deal this damage to a given target once" or the like.
I also never see it say anything that resembles, "If you hit this target more than once, the spell also affects it that many times."
2) If you strike someone in melee, he's your target. If you smack him again, he's your target again. "Each target" does not mean "Each different target."
He's only one target. Have you hit this target? Yes? Then the spell affects it. There's thing about the ability that checks to see how many times you've hit the target, only that you've hit it at all.
Let's say you're facing an orc and a human opponent, and you have three attacks per round. You cast a touch spell and full attack: First you hit the orc, then the human, then the orc again. Is the orc not your target the second time?
Yes, the orc was your target a second time. That does not make him two targets. He is still a single target. Being targeted multiple times does not make a target more than one target.
I can throw a bunch of darts at a bullseye, but in the end, not matter how many darts I throw or how many times I throw them, there isn't more than one bullseye. If somebody tells me that he'll give me $20 if I hit the bullseye with a dart, I don't expect he'll give me $40 if I do it twice because he never said he would. He just said said it'd be $20 if I hit it at all. Hitting it a second time won't make me any more money from this guy.
I understand how you might think otherwise (and I blame the inferiority of the English language), but unfortunately, your interpretation doesn't hold up.
He's a target you hit in melee combat that round, yet according to your interpretation he isn't affected
No, according to his interpretation, the orc would indeed be affected because he was in fact hit in the melee.
Another scenario: A wizard casts a spell on your fighter's sword that says "For the duration of this spell, each target you hit in melee takes an extra 1d6 fire damage."
I don't believe there is any such spell. Find it and then we'll talk.
Simply because it says "each target you hit" instead of "each hit"?
That's a very big difference.
This is something you can indeed read both ways.
This.
And that's probably why it would be nice to discuss the ability with your DM before using it and getting out on the table which of the two readings you'll follow for the rest of your character's career.
This.
Read the rest of his post.
Yeah, you can interpret the ability more than one way, but that doesn't mean that every interpretation is correct. Some interpretations will be wrong.
I've never DM'd one. Some of the guys in my group had a side game going. The DM said he would never allow another Duskblade. One specific example of why was how the character chanelled Shocking Grasp (at 5+ caster level) into an attack multible times. Having a character dealing as much damage as that threw the encounters off balance. He was the most potent PC without even getting very clever about it.
I don't think I would ban the class, but I'd say they are generally more powerful than their core colleagues. No doubt about that.
Yeah, the shocking grasp channel seems to be one of the most obvious uber combos for the duskblade, and you can do it at a relatively low in level as well. When duskblades first get arcane channeling, they'll likely have the best damage of anyone in the group.
Now, I'm not sure if this alone makes them broken. A wizard still has better offense, and a warblade is going to have the benefit of having a useful defense as well. The duskblade tends just to be a pure melee damage character, with only moderate defenses, and not many gimmicks other than damage. He's supposed to be a fighter mage, but really his spell is very small and not too useful for anything other than blasting.
Of course, compared to a straight fighter, monk or barbarian, the duskblade will blow him away. Of course, those classes are all really weak.
Despite evidence, namely an NPC duskblade that handed their heads to them (good back n' forth melee, then, True Striked a decent Power Attack 2-handing a longsword, then Channeled a Sudden Maximized Vampiric Touch into it as well)...talk about reversal of fortune. I thought, tada. Surely I've whet some of their whistles. Simple, not alot of book keeping, good power, nice right? They just aren't enticed.
New book at Ghost's table? Everyone dog piles on it to try "the new stuff"...just not this and it breaks my damn heart, they're so cool.
As for the 13th lvl discreapancy, I gotta' cast my lot w/ Crimson_Concerto Cifer and Etarnon on this, and I'm not even that well versed on it...yet. Balance wise and from what I've gleaned, yeah, it would appear that you can tag multiple guys in rnd 'x', but not double up effect 'y' on the same target. 1 target is just 1 target.
I appreciate the wording issues, but to me (IMO), it seems open and shut.
Show your DM comparisons with a Cleric at select levels.
It states in the Player's Handbook that a spell or ability, unless otherwise noted, can affect a given target only once.
A target is defined as one creature, object, or other thing identified by the spell description.
So, specifically because it DOESN'T say it can affect a creature multiple times, the base rules win and each creature takes the effect once.
Want it twice? Take Twin Spell. That's all you're getting, munchkin.
The duskblade can channel away, but they're still attacking within the span of 6 seconds. Would you think that a caster of a level THAT low could possible deal that much damage in 6 seconds?
If you need any more convincing, I refer you to this thread.
Same issue, different design.
Oh, I know that there's other classes out there that are just as overpowered as the duskblade. The original question was to explain why DMs don't like duskblades.
And let's not get into the druid class.
But that is precisely the reason the DM gives, that the Duskbalde is too overpowering compared to core classes. The Power of the Cleric, Druid and Wizard are core classes, so it is valid to point to how these are more overpowered.
But while the Duskblade may be overpowered in appearance and in certain aspects, he is also less powerful in other aspects. For instance, he is not nearly as good a Meat shield and neither is he comparable to the Caster classes, so while he may be "better" in many senses, when it comes down to filling a needed roll in a party he is decidedly inferior to the core classes. Inferior to the warrior as a meat shield and inferior to the wizard as a caster means a Duskblade is not overpowered. A good class perhaps for those who want to get down and dirty in melee, and yet cast spells, however he will no suplant either.
It states in the Player's Handbook that a spell or ability, unless otherwise noted, can affect a given target only once.
A target is defined as one creature, object, or other thing identified by the spell description.
So, specifically because it DOESN'T say it can affect a creature multiple times, the base rules win and each creature takes the effect once.
That's the issue I'm having with it, though--unless otherwise noted. There are several spells and other effects that gives you a certain limit on the number of targets you can choose, then allows you to pick as many targets as you want within certain bounds. Without exception, the effects that can only target a given creature once say so.
You choose secondary targets as you like, but they must all be within 30 feet of the primary target, and no target can be struck more than once. You can choose to affect fewer secondary targets than the maximum.
Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.
Each arc affects one secondary target chosen by you, all of which must be within 30 feet of the primary target, and none of which can be affected more than once.
When you make this attack, you apply precision-based damage (such as from sneak attack) only once. If you score a critical hit, only the weapon in your primary hand deals extra critical hit damage; your off-hand weapon deals regular damage.
If it really was "unless otherwise noted," why would those abilities say so again? This particular ability is of the same type as those above--take one spell and apply it to a bunch of targets when you normally can't. Since you're breaking the normal targeting rules, I don't believe the "affect each target only once" clause applies, any more than it would if you used Twin Spell; that one doesn't say "Unlike the normal rule, you can apply the same spell to the same person more than once" but it's assumed that you can.
The duskblade can channel away, but they're still attacking within the span of 6 seconds. Would you think that a caster of a level THAT low could possible deal that much damage in 6 seconds?
He might not have very high level spellcasting, but he is 13th level at this point, after all. A caster of a level THAT low can certainly affect more than 3 targets with his spells.
If it really was "unless otherwise noted," why would those abilities say so again?
It's probably just a reminder. It doesn't really matter, because they work the same whether or not they say that. The fact that they chose to say it again doesn't actually mean anything as far as the RAW go.
. . . I don't see what Manyshot or Dual Strike have to do with any of this, though...
Since you're breaking the normal targeting rules, I don't believe the "affect each target only once" clause applies
The targeting rules and that clause have nothing to do with one another. Just because you're breaking one doesn't mean the other is gone as well.
Twin Spell; that one doesn't say "Unlike the normal rule, you can apply the same spell to the same person more than once" but it's assumed that you can.
Actually, Twin Spell DOES say you affect the same targets twice:
Casting a twinned spell causes the spell to take effect twice in the same area or on the same target simultaneously...
It's probably just a reminder. It doesn't really matter, because they work the same whether or not they say that. The fact that they chose to say it again doesn't actually mean anything as far as the RAW go.
I suppose it could be just a reminder, but the fact that there are some abilities that specifically say "You can't affect a creature more than once" and the others are silent about it, rather than some saying "You can affect a creature more than once" while the others are silent about it, leads me to believe that the ones saying you can't are the exception rather than the rule. If it was intended that the basic rule was "You can only affect a given creature once" and everything else was to override that, they wouldn't need to reemphasize that on some abilities and not mention it on the rest.
. . . I don't see what Manyshot or Dual Strike have to do with any of this, though...
That was simply to point out that there are general feats as well as spells that make a point of mentioning that; I figured that if I only used spells and metamagic as an example, someone would say "But that's only how spells work!"
The targeting rules and that clause have nothing to do with one another. Just because you're breaking one doesn't mean the other is gone as well.
Then why does every ability that lets you add targets also specify whether or not you can affect someone more than once? If it wasn't assumed that that general rule didn't apply, then there would be no need to reemphasize it.
Actually, Twin Spell DOES say you affect the same targets twice:
So it does. I stand corrected. Though now that I go back and read it again, Twin Spell doesn't affect the target twice with the same spell, but rather says it casts the spell twice, so I would say that the other feats and spells are probably more relevant to this situation than Twin Spell is.
EDIT: I just checked the SRD to see if there are any touch spells allowing multiple touches, and lo and behold there is: chill touch. There's one example of a touch spell usable more than once (say, as part of a full attack) that does not specify that you can only affect each creature once. So we now have a definite precedence of a touch affect that can normally affect multiple targets, and that does not specify that it does not affect multiple targets as every similar effect does. Does that impact the interpretation of this ability at all?
Run the shocking grasp damage. if you hit more than one target burn that off the spells of the day i.e three shocks = three spell slots burned.
If you read the whole paragraph, in PHB II, not just that single line, seems to me that's what it implies.
Again, it is ambiguous.
I'd say email WOTC for an official clarification. Oops, like XP, no longer supported.
Ask Monte Cook.
Or
Better yet
ASK your DM, and deal.
Wa la, problem solved.
This is why the game needs a DM, and not 30+ books of freaking rules.
[/1e rant]
EDIT: I just checked the SRD to see if there are any touch spells allowing multiple touches, and lo and behold there is: chill touch... Does that impact the interpretation of this ability at all?
No, that does not impact the interpretation of the Duskblade ability at all.
Why do they say something that shouldn't need to say? I don't know. Maybe they just wanted to. It doesn't matter. Lingering on that would be logical fallacy.
I wouldn't call it a logical fallacy by any means (at least none that I'm familiar with), but I will admit that the WotC designers aren't exactly the paragons of game design and expressiveness.
Tell you what--we'll agree to disagree, you rule it your way in your games, I'll rule my way in my games, and we can go back to the wider question of the duskblade and stop picking on this ability.
Careful reading of PHB, page 141 touch attacks, is essential, also.
I'm...not seeing how anything there applies to channeling spells. Explain?
I think you're in trouble since your DM obviously lacks persepctive about what different classes can really do. Even if you do convince him, whenever you do anything a 2nd level fighter can't, he'll roll his eyes and wish ill will upon your PC under his breathe.
If you go the Cleric-Druid route, he'll just accuse you of being a munchkin.
Though I think taking a class he thinks is fine and then ruining his game because it is really stronger than the duskblade is the only way to really change his mind.
Basically: Are duskblades overpowered in the hands of someone who can be trusted not to twink, cheese, and minmax?
Any class can be overpowered in the right (or wrong I should say) hands..
If they are not overpowered, how shall I present the argument to my DM?
Ask your GM to list classes he doesn't think are overpowered. Watch all of them suck.
If you were playing some gritty combat game, I could understand. But then maybe you should be playing Call of The Cthulhu, or Deadlands, where magic is dangerous and sketchy. Dungeons&Dragons is Dragonball Z with dice...
All casters are inheritly overpowered by their very nature. Some moreso then others obviously. And some not at all. Do to their poorly thought out construction. (Ranger/Paladin come to mind)
The Duksblade is "mid-tier" on the caster meter. Not nearly as ridiculous as wizards, which even they require tons of maintenince and forethought, nor as cheap as clerics/druids..
God Tier: Cleric/Druid (Ironic considering they're divine casters)
High Tier: Wizard/Archivist
Mid-Tier: Dreaded Necromancer/Duskblade/Warmage/Warlock/Beguiler/Favored Soul
Low-Tier: Dragon Shaman/Wu-Jen/Shugenjha/Hexblade/Sorcerer/Spirit Shaman
**** Tier: Bard/Paladin/Ranger
Psionics are around mid to low tier. With soulknife being a **** tier..
Go God Wizard, ruin game.
Ruin the game with a Sorceror (it can be done)
Warmage, BLAST THEM.
Hexblade, I'm sure you can find something.
Have him list his "not OP" classes, take them to CharOp and tell them to have fun.
Show him WHY a Duskblade isn't OP. Better than that, convince everyone playing to use CharOp builds and trash everything.
Anyway... I always figured that Channeling a spell affects each creature it hits ONLY once, and costs only the single spell slot. But, meh, I prefer shapeshifter builds. Preferably via (Battle) Sorceror/Warshaper/Master Transmogrifist. Of course Polymorph and Shapechange are total headaches, but it's worth it.
God Tier: Cleric/Druid (Ironic considering they're divine casters)
High Tier: Wizard/Archivist
Mid-Tier: Dreaded Necromancer/Duskblade/Warmage/Warlock/Beguiler/Favored Soul
Low-Tier: Dragon Shaman/Wu-Jen/Shugenjha/Hexblade/Sorcerer/Spirit Shaman
**** Tier: Bard/Paladin/Ranger
I'm sorry but Sorcerer being below Dread Necromancer, Warmage, and Beguiler =
.Sorcerer's Spell List >>> Dread Necromancer's Spell List, Warmage's Spell List, and Beguiler's Spell List combined.
Of course, that's only the worst thing wrong with your list. The general spirit of what you're saying is still valid, though, so I'll digress. :P
However with the right setup... Well Sorceror can TROUNCE anyone if you know what you're doing. And use some variants, because getting 3/4 BAB for -1 spell/day, -1 Spell Known.... Makes the world a happier place.
Or perhaps the Dm just doesn't like the Duskblade
I see nothing wrong with not allowing something into a game.
I see nothing wrong with not allowing something into a game.
While that may be true in the general sense, that doesn't mean that it's simply okay for the DM to disallow anything he or she wants without any good reason. That's just crappy DMing. Case in point, the DM in question here has stated that the reason for disallowing the duskblade was because of a perceived game imbalance. This imbalance is nonexistent, and so the DM is unjustified. I suggest the DM come to the boards and create a topic asking about opinions on whether or not the duskblade is balanced, and he should state the reasons why he believes they are not. He should easily get enough responses to convince him otherwise, assuming he's not a total douche, of course.
True Strike, a weapon's crit range, Keen weapons even, Power Attack, and whatever no nonsense standard melee combat feats you throw in the mix. Not guaranteeing a critical hit or anything, just recommending higher odds and simple mathematics to facilitate gameplay quickly and focus on PC ambitions, not player.
A fun, not too difficult class to engage.
Access and future PrC readilly engaged too, by virtue of full BAB & arcane CL.
And fantasically, they can be portrayed easilly. It's (duskblade) been done in a zillion pop-culture outlets in varying forms, imagery, text, etc.
While that may be true in the general sense, that doesn't mean that it's simply okay for the DM to disallow anything he or she wants without any good reason. That's just crappy DMing. Case in point, the DM in question here has stated that the reason for disallowing the duskblade was because of a perceived game imbalance. This imbalance is nonexistent, and so the DM is unjustified. I suggest the DM come to the boards and create a topic asking about opinions on whether or not the duskblade is balanced, and he should state the reasons why he believes they are not. He should easily get enough responses to convince him otherwise, assuming he's not a total douche, of course.
If he feels uncomfortable with something in his game, he doesn't have to have a 'good reason'. If one of the players feels more comfortable then that player can take over the Dming duties.
If he feels uncomfortable with something in his game, he doesn't have to have a 'good reason'.
Yes, he does. Why is he uncomfortable with it? What's the reason? If he's completely unjustified but wants to do away with it anyways just because he's on his little DM power trip, then he needs to get over himself and realize he's not the only one whose fun matters when he runs a game. The DM needs to learn to compromise too and part of doing that is realizing that you're not always going to like all of your players' characters. If you think simply not liking something is good enough justification for not allowing it in your game, then you are a bad DM.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this is what's going on in the Topic Creator's case. In fact, disallowing something from your games because it disrupts the balance of power is completely logical. However, it just so happens that the DM's perceptions about the class's power isn't quite true to reality. The answer is therefore to reason with him and show them that they aren't overpowered (or send him here so that we can show him).
I think that's is a bit harsh on the DM; if the DM doesn't want psionics, incarnum, martial adepts, or even other basic expansion classes in his game, it's within his purview to not allow them. Heck, if he doesn't want any Prestige Classes in his game, they're technically optional by the core rules.
This is true...but you still should have a reason. With psionics and incarnum, for instance, a good reason would be "I don't like the flavor"--which players might not like, but they have to accept that. Opinions, however, are subjective whereas declarations of brokenness are objective; the duskblade isn't overpowered, so banning it for reasons of brokenness are invalid and players should try to show this.
If the reason is subjective, then that's perfectly fine; if the DM says "I don't like it" and the player says "Yes you do!" they're obviously wrong...but if the DM says "It's broken" and it isn't, the player should try to demonstrate its balance.
OTOH, it really doesn't work if the player has some knowledge of the game and can point out that the reasoning behind the banning is unjustified.
With psionics and incarnum, for instance, a good reason would be "I don't like the flavor"
That's a horrible reason.
I don't like the flavor of Dwarves, Gnomes, Monks, Paladins, or Rangers, but you won't see me banning any of them. Why not? Because it's not just about what I as a DM like. It's also about what my players want to play. I'm a DM because I like making sure my friends have fun. If my player would have fun playing a Gnome Ranger, why should I say no? I mean, I sure as hell don't expect my players to all like all of my NPCs, so why should I expect to like all of my players' PCs? That's ridiculous. Everybody has a different idea of what kinds of characters are interesting, and if you don't realize that your players probably have a different opinion of what constitutes a cool character than you do, I don't see what business you have DMing.
I don't know where this view arose that the DM is somehow above the other players, but I want to find out who started it and slap some sense into them...
That's a horrible reason.
Understand this: I, personally, DM 99% of the time. I, personally, have never banned a single book. I, personally, like psionics, MoI, ToB, and ToM more than most other 3e books combined. I, personally, don't advocate banning anything, particularly for flavor purposes, since balance is relative and you can most often compensate for a given spell/class/whatever as long as all of the PCs are on about the same level of balance and optimization.
However, I don't speak for all DMs. If some DM wanted to ban something--for whatever reason--and was choosing between "Sorry, guys, I don't like the flavor, so it probably won't fit into my campaign," and "Sorry, guy, but even though I haven't really read through the book, and I don't really get it, I think it's broken," the former would be a good reason and the latter would not. It's not a good reason in all circumstances, but it can be in most cases; for instance, if there aren't any psionics in the world and a PC wants to play a psion, the DM would have to (A) go to the trouble of learning the psionics rules and (B) add psionics into the backstory and/or reflavor the PC. Many DMs don't have the time to do the extra work and would much rather their player simply make an arcane caster. In general, I think flavor incompatibility with the campaign is the only reason you'd be justified to ban anything; you wouldn't expect to have an all-wizard party in a low magic world, for instance, so why expect to have psions in a world without psionics?
Perhaps I should have said a better reason, not a good one. Otherwise, I believe we're mostly in agreement about this; our opinions on banning in general probably won't help this particular discussion, since the duskblade was being banned based on "brokenness" rather than flavor concerns.
If some DM wanted to ban something--for whatever reason--and was choosing between "Sorry, guys, I don't like the flavor, so it probably won't fit into my campaign," and "Sorry, guy, but even though I haven't really read through the book, and I don't really get it, I think it's broken," the former would be a good reason and the latter would not.
I think you got that backwards. "I don't like it," is a horrible reason. "It would break the game," or, "I don't know how to run it," are good reasons. Only an irresponsible DM would allow material that he doesn't know how to run or that would ruin the game for everybody. Of course, I also believe that DMs given the opportunity should be willing to read over books and make an effort to understand a mechanical system if players decide they'd like to use them (though I understand that's not always an option)...
for instance, if there aren't any psionics in the world and a PC wants to play a psion, the DM would have to (A) go to the trouble of learning the psionics rules and (B) add psionics into the backstory and/or reflavor the PC.
B is a non-issue, and the old, "This system doesn't exist in this world," is complete BS the vast majority of the time. "It's not important to this world," is completely different than, "it doesn't exist in this world." Incarnum doesn't make a single appearance in my campaign world's history, but that doesn't mean that it therefore doesn't exist and that I'd forbid a PC from using it. Heck, Monks have never come up either. Would you expect me to ban them? The old, "this doesn't exist in this world," is just a lazy excuse and nothing more. There's nothing about my world that should explicitly prevent the use of incarnum or monks if somebody ever wants to play one, and for the vast majority of other campaigns, there's not a single thing about those worlds that would prevent psionics from existing.
A is the only reasonable issue.
In general, I think flavor incompatibility with the campaign is the only reason you'd be justified to ban anything;
The problem is that most claims of flavor incompatibility are complete BS.
you wouldn't expect to have an all-wizard party in a low magic world, for instance,
Why not? PCs are special. If there's any magic in the world at all, I should expect the PCs to be the ones using it. Unless I have a very specific plot reason and I make that very clear to the players (and they agree, of course), I would not and should not have problems with any of them playing casters in a low-magic setting.
our opinions on banning in general probably won't help this particular discussion, since the duskblade was being banned based on "brokenness" rather than flavor concerns.
You are right. I apologize for the derailment. I just can't stand it when I read responses suggesting that the DM is akin to god and that everything he does is to be respected...
I think you got that backwards. "I don't like it," is a horrible reason. "It would break the game," or, "I don't know how to run it," are good reasons. Only an irresponsible DM would allow material that he doesn't know how to run or that would ruin the game for everybody. Of course, I also believe that DMs given the opportunity should be willing to read over books and make an effort to understand a mechanical system if players decide they'd like to use them (though I understand that's not always an option)...
Ah. See, I'm assuming the scenario of this particular DM, where the material isn't broken, but where he believes it is--it would be a good reason if it were actually broken (like "No, you can't play Pun-Pun!"), but not in this case.
B is a non-issue, and the old, "This system doesn't exist in this world," is complete BS the vast majority of the time. "It's not important to this world," is completely different than, "it doesn't exist in this world." Incarnum doesn't make a single appearance in my campaign world's history, but that doesn't mean that it therefore doesn't exist and that I'd forbid a PC from using it. Heck, Monks have never come up either. Would you expect me to ban them? The old, "this doesn't exist in this world," is just a lazy excuse and nothing more. There's nothing about my world that should explicitly prevent the use of incarnum or monks if somebody ever wants to play one, and for the vast majority of other campaigns, there's not a single thing about those worlds that would prevent psionics from existing.
I think my "It doesn't fit into my world" and your "I don't know how to run it" are two sides of the same coin; I've never run into a DM who knows how to use a system but deliberately excludes it from his/her world except for the standard Vancian system...in which case "It doesn't fit my world" and "I can't run it" are the same thing. I'm not talking about a DM that says well, there aren't any psions in the world but we'll work with your to reflavor it/change it/whatever. I'm talking about the DMs that say no, there aren't any psionic things in this world period because I don't have the books/don't know the system/have a major plot point revolving around it/etc. Again, I think our points are approaching the same thing from different angles.
Why not? PCs are special. If there's any magic in the world at all, I should expect the PCs to be the ones using it. Unless I have a very specific plot reason and I make that very clear to the players (and they agree, of course), I would not and should not have problems with any of them playing casters in a low-magic setting.
I wasn't saying no casters, I was saying all casters. A wizard or two is expected (cf. Gandalf), but a party of all casters really breaks the low-magic feel; a DM might be justified in saying "Guys, I'm trying to make it seem low-magic; could some of you be fighter-types?" In the same way, a DM might be justified in saying "Guys, there aren't any psions in the world, and I'd rather you didn't play one because [insert reason here], so would you mind switching?" The difference with this point being that, if the players don't want a low-magic world or a nonpsionic world, the DM should probably change the campaign to fit the players, not the other way around.
You are right. I apologize for the derailment. I just can't stand it when I read responses suggesting that the DM is akin to god and that everything he does is to be respected...
Not what I was going for by any means, but I can see how it could be taken that way. But now we should stop getting off topic. ;)
Not what I was going for by any means, but I can see how it could be taken that way.
The kinds of responses I was referring to were actually more like Quiterjon's, not yours particularly.
But I digress. I see now that we're close enough to being on the same page here...
The kinds of responses I was referring to were actually more like Quiterjon's, not yours particularly.
But I digress. I see now that we're close enough to being on the same page here...
Excellent! Now to get back on topic...hmm....
So, OP, how 'bout them duskblades? Have we pretty much cleared everything up?
Go CoDzilla, ruin game.
Go God Wizard, ruin game.
Have him list his "not OP" classes, take them to CharOp and tell them to have fun.
Show him WHY a Duskblade isn't OP. Better than that, convince everyone playing to use CharOp builds and trash everything.
Do people actually do that?
If your DM is afraid you're going to make a munchkin character and ruin the game, what better way to prove him wrong than to do the very thing he's afraid of?
That's a great way to get kicked out of a game and leads to the DM being more paranoid about what he allows in game, not more so. Once you prove yourself to be a powergaming munchkin out to ruin the game, the DM is going to pretty much approach you with a zero-tolerance policy, assuming you don't get kicked on the spot. And if you're playing something with the intention of ruining the game, then you deserve to be kicked.
Now... Playing a total CharOp nigtmare beast can be FUN. It can be acceptable. You can "ruin" the game without actually being a munchkin. Convince him to let you USE Polymorph and Shapeshift (as well as similar spells) as your staple spells. The right build can do it... It can be great. It also tends to bog everything down if you haven't worked out a system.
I personally think that there's no REAL way to ruin a campaign. I mean if the players are going into CharOp Munchkin mode... Make the encounters harder. Simple as that. If the lvl3 Kobold Sorceror HAPPENS top be able to chew up most anything you throw at him? Throw a Troll at him. Make it even.
If you want to play a Duskblade-Style character and he still refuses to allow an actual Duskblade... There's Battle Sorceror in Unearthed Arcana. Not QUITE as good. But it can work, if you go the right direction. There are other Duskblade Stule casters as well... Beguiler, Hexblade, a variant or two of Wizard. There's a "caster bonus" Fighter that will leave you with a CL hit... But you can take a feat or two to make up for that. A Favored Soul, a Cleric with the right outlook.
Make your Duskblade from a cobbled together beasty. Ask CharOp to make a pseudo-Duskblade. You won't do spell channeling... But you can just handle that with fluff I suppose.
I personally think that there's no REAL way to ruin a campaign. I mean if the players are going into CharOp Munchkin mode... Make the encounters harder. Simple as that. If the lvl3 Kobold Sorceror HAPPENS top be able to chew up most anything you throw at him? Throw a Troll at him. Make it even.
I agree that you can't really ruin a campaign, as long as the party power level is about the same. As a DM, I can easily deal with an entire party of God wizards and CoDzilla by increasing the challenges and optimizing NPCs...but a party of God wizards, CoDzilla, and a mediocre fighter? Not so much; either the fighter dies in the first round or the others mow through NPCs like crazy. Nothing is broken in a vacuum--broken depends on the rest of the party.
That does not, however, mean that the OP should deliberately try to overshadow the rest of the party and show the DM what "broken" actually is. First, you will get farther by reasoning as to why the duskblade isn't broken than by using something that is and making your DM think that since you wanted to use it, it must have been broken. Second, and more importantly, it won't be fun for the other players, and whether or not the DM understands balance you shouldn't take your frustration out on the DM and catch the other players in the crossfire.
Personally I vote for my suggestion... Find a fairly optimized "Battle" Mage build. Preferably with a Battle Sorceror.
Or any battle capable spellcasting class. You can get the Duskblade feel without an actual Duskblade with the correct mix of classes.
You can get the Duskblade feel without an actual Duskblade with the correct mix of classes.
Not just classes...there's actually a decent amount of support for gish types in 3e.
* Spellsword PrC (Complete Warrior)
* Smiting Spell metamagic feat (Player's Handbook II)
* Spell Storing weapon property ([i]Dungeon Master's Guide)
* Skillful weapon property (Complete Arcane)
* Arcane Strike feat (Complete Warrior)
* Armored Mage variant for the Fighter (Complete Mage)
* Stalwart Sorcerer variant for the Sorcerer (Complete Mage)
Aside from that, the Duskblade is certainly not overpowered. A core Cleric can wear heavy armor and carry a heavy shield without losing spellcasting, can gain full bab through Divine Power, has many more spells to choose than Dusky, has a much greater variety in his spells, has two good saves, the same d8 hit die and gains the same number of feats... Dusky can quickcast 4-5 times/pay if he hits 20th level and can channel low level spells with his attacks... Helpful? Yes. Destructive? No more than what the Cleric or the Wizard or the Druid can do.
Imho if the DM just doesn't like the Duskblade it's his choise to allow it or no. But if the reason is because he thinks it overpowered than it's a wrong decision.
And the wording "you channel once per target" is what CAUSES the confusion.
And the wording "you channel once per target" is what CAUSES the confusion.
You gotta read the actual Q&A, it's fairly cut & dry:
"If you hit the same creature more than once during the Full Attack action, does the spell affect it each time you hit?
No. The spell affects each target only once."
Edit: Rereading that portion of the FAQ, I'm suddenly curious why all this confusion about a sword & board type character casting spells came about with the Duskblade, as obviously the Cleric's been doing such things since day 1...
That cout of the way... Do you expend a spell-slot for each target?
Do you expend a spell-slot for each target?
"At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a Full Attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round. Doing so discharges the spell at the end of the round..."
So, cast ol' trusty shocking grasp and attempt to smack four fools with it as a Full Attack action.
I guess I really didn't understand the whole problem very well. The rules and the faq say that with the full attack channeling (gained at 13th level) you can affect each target only once (regardless by how many touches a spell may normally allow ex chill touch). So (at 13th level) if you channel a chill touch and hit 3 different targets the spell goes off 3 times. If you channel a chill touch and hit one guy 3 times it goes off only once. If you channel a chill touch and hit one guy 2 times and another guy one time it goes off once for each of them. You can channel only one spell per turn and every change made to that spell (with metamagic feats etc) affects all the targets (meaning that a channeled empowered spell that affects 3 targets, does the +50% damage to all of them).
The spell is discharged at the end of the round if you use the full attack channeling whether you hit or not. With the standard action channeling though (gained at 3rd level), the spell is not discharged if you miss. Needless to say that with Duskblade's channel ability you can channel spells with a range of "Touch" and nothing else. Not even "Ranged Touch". These are pretty much all the rules and they are quite clear to be honest. If they don't help then I really can't understand where the problem stands, sorry.
Still, Duskblade remains a FUN class to play and not an overpowered one. An optimized fighter is a better front liner than a Dusky and any serious wizard is a better caster.
I've never had any trouble understanding the Duskblade, personally. I threw my last querstion out because it had been asked earlier and I haven't got a book to go through and verify what I remember.
Anyway... I vote for beasty-masterful-Battle Sorceror with Tenser's Transformation + Enlarge Person + monstrous Greatsword. Because I want to see some heads rolling.
I love combos like that...
*Linky is fixed*
Thank God... It gave me quite a few problems to fix it. I an't used to BBcode very well yet. :P
*Anyway... I vote for beasty-masterful-Battle Sorceror with Tenser's Transformation + Enlarge Person + monstrous Greatsword. Because I want to see some heads rolling.
I love combos like that...*
What about a wizard/cleric/mystic theurge with Divine Power+Righteous Might+ Displacement+Mirror Image? Can't have that Greatsword though... :P (It doesn't really feel like a Duskblade but meh... who cares? :D )
However that is quite the setup right there... And it MIGHT earn a place in my "wall o' things to do"
Right after I convince someone to let me run my Sorceror with the Metamagic Specialist + Battle Sorceror variants at the same time...
Quickened Enlarge Person, Followed by Tenser's Transformation, sprinkle some pretty toys in between (displacement... maybe some others). Plenty of gloom-and-doom feats in between. Preferably Mithril Platemail. Spiked. Because it is AWESOME
Right after I convince someone to let me run my Sorceror with the Metamagic Specialist + Battle Sorceror variants at the same time...
Shouldn't be hard to convince. I'd recommend taking the Spell Shield variant (Dungeonscape) & Rapid Metamagic feat (Complete Mage) instead.
Quickened Enlarge Person, Followed by Tenser's Transformation, sprinkle some pretty toys in between (displacement... maybe some others). Plenty of gloom-and-doom feats in between. Preferably Mithril Platemail. Spiked. Because it is AWESOME
Unfortunately, you can't quicken Enlarge Person (the original casting time is longer than Full-Round). Thankfully, it's duration is measured in minutes, so you can probably get it going prior to combat (if you know it's coming).
Hmmm...
I just like the sound of Battle Sorceror.