Looking for a Fighter Wizard build

FalcWP

Explorer
eamon said:
Why not replace Fighter(1) with Duskblade(1) for armored casting? it can hardly harm to be able to wear light armor without arcane spell failure chance, at the measly cost of one feat.

This would only help with your Duskblade spells, though.

How about a Duskblade 3/Wizard 4/Abjurant Champion 5/Spellsword 1/Unseen Seer 2/Spellwarp Sniper 5? It'd require Partial BAB increases and your DM allowing the Unseen Seer's 'Damage Bonus' to grant you sneak attack, so check first.

You'll get a BAB of 16 and 9th level spells, and you can use arcane channeling for *any* touch spell you know, and any area spell of 5th level or lower, while still getting an attack off that round. Energy Drain, Imprisonment, Polar Ray... you can channel whatever you'd like as long as you have spells, and then switch over to your 4 attacks per round. I'll admit, HP would be a bit light with this, so be sure to cast anything you know that grants extra HP (channeled Vampiric Touch + False Life, for instance).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

wildstarsreach

First Post
eamon said:
Why not replace Fighter(1) with Duskblade(1) for armored casting? it can hardly harm to be able to wear light armor without arcane spell failure chance, at the measly cost of one feat.
Because it does not work with other classes arcane spells.
 
Last edited:

wildstarsreach

First Post
I'm currently playing a duskblade. Right now he's at Duskblade 6/Fighter 1 (Armored Savant Replacement level).

Since we are in a campaign that is expected to go to 20th level, I've planned out my chareacter, Duskblade 10/Fighter 4 (Armored Savant Replacement F1)/Ranger 1/Scout 5.

This is a skirmisher, moving in for 1d8+9+3d6(Blade of blood)+5d6(Shocking Grasp) or 5d6 Vampiric touch)+4d6(Skirmish). The character has enough magic and fighting ability to be a danger to anyone.
 

Cameron

First Post
Doug McCrae said:
Yes but otoh a wizard can end up with dead slots if he memorises the wrong spells. A sorcerer never has dead slots. Arcane Strike gives you something to do with those wasted slots so I feel it synergises better with wizard.
Sorcerer gives you more slots to play with. Especially useful if you are powering up two weapons every round.
 

Cameron

First Post
Darklone said:
Sadly Arcane Strike is pretty expensive to use on two weapons.

Has anyone mentioned the Dragonfire adept yet? Cooler than most warlocks and it has much more staying power since Con is the main attribute.
Yes it is, unless you use a two-bladed sword or a double weapon of some sort :)
 

Cameron

First Post
Kmart Kommando said:
Actually, it says 'pick a melee weapon, an unarmed strike, or your natural weapons', so TWF isn't even a viable option, unless you're a Monk. Good for dragons, just okay for everyone else.

Though I can see how free action to use + infinite number of free actions per round can be abused. After our AoW campaign resulted in everything that can be broken being used on both sides, the next set of house rules made Arcane Strike a swift action to use.
It is a free action. You can punch out as many as you want. If you are a Maralith, you can empower all of your 6 longswords and your bite and tail... if you have spell slots...
 

Cameron

First Post
Darklone said:
That's what I meant. If the DM allows Arcane Strike as free action, you'll still be burning faster through your spell slots than a 3.0 hasted wizard with Quicken on speed.
One of the reasons I prefer Sorcerer over Wizard.
 

dirkformica

First Post
Polymorph spells + Arcane Strike make a good combo since it specifically states "natural weapons." Even if you're a Dragon with Claws, bites, tail sweeps, and wing buffets, they're all getting your Arcane Strike damage from just one spell slot.
 


DarkJester

First Post
dirkformica said:
Polymorph spells + Arcane Strike make a good combo since it specifically states "natural weapons." Even if you're a Dragon with Claws, bites, tail sweeps, and wing buffets, they're all getting your Arcane Strike damage from just one spell slot.

Wow, never noticed that. I don't think I'd even mention that off-handedly to a DM who might play it as that. I'd be to afraid of some dragon getting his hands on the feat and becoming even scarier.
 

Remove ads

Top