Spellsword - is it weak?

[DMaple]

Hmmn I don't have t&b here so I can't recheck it, but it seemed good to me when I looked at it. But I though the spell progression of the spellsword game like 6 or 7 spell levels. So a 5/5/10 fighter/wiz/spellsword would have a caster level of 12 and a bab of 14. A fighter/wiz 10/10 would have a bab of 15 and a caster level of 10. I'd say slight edge to the spellsword.

Nope a 5/5/10 fighter/wiz/spellsword would have a Caster level of 10 (5 Wizard plus 5 (10/2) Spellsword). So the Spellsword has a worse BAB and no better off spellwise.

Now a fighter/wizard 2/18 sure is better at spell casting with a bab of 11 and caster level 18. but a fighter/wizard/spellsword 1/9/10 would have a caster level of 16 and a bab of 12, would have a ton more hp, two good saves, be able to cast in armor, spell chache, and spell storing.

Spellsword would be caster level 14 not 16. So no 8th or 9th level spells at all. Where as the 2/18 level Fighter/Wizard has access to all spell levels.

Dramatically better than a straight f/w no but slightly better I think, which is where prestige classes hould be IMO. I'm for disallowing a ton of prestige classes since I think they get signifigantly better not just slightly better than the core classes.

I agree they should not be dramatically better but the Spellsword is significantly worse off. He loses 9 spells including access to all 8th and 9th level spells, 4 bonus feats (1 fighter, 3 wizard).

Still Spell lets you cast in armour (and I still have 3 bonus feats left to spend). The 2/18 will have two additional spell levels to use the meta-magic feats with or to cast 8th and 9th level spells, thats much more flexible than Channel Spell.

Brew Potion (and I still have 2 bonus feats left) is just as useful a Spell Cache and doesn't put all your eggs in one basket.

The +1 BAB is hardly worth it, the extra hit points and good saves help a little but I think this is weak, especially if you compare it with most other Prestige Classes.

 

[Ravellion]

For people propagating that the spellsword loses too much... what do you want? 2nd edition multiclass, where you didn't give up anything? The spellsword is basically a class exactly the same as 5 wiz/ 5 fig, but then with some cool (and if you look at it that way, nearly free) special abilities. It might not fit for a fighter 1/ wizard 9. Duh. That's a wizard who knows how to hold a sword. Not a fighter/wizard.

Rav

 

[gfunk]

You guys should take a look at the sample Spellsword that is listed in T&B, p. 27, Haile the Invincible (18 Character levels total):
Frt1/Wiz7/Spellsword10

99 hp (1d10 + 7d4 + 10d8 + 36)

Casts spells as a 12th level Wizard with the following spells memorized:
Tenser's Transformation x2
Quickened True Strike
Among others...

Maybe the best strategy would be start off as a Wiz7 then add the Frt1 level, then go Spellsword. This way, your charcter wouldn't be too weak at any given point.

Also this NPC has a 32 ac and +21/+16/+11 melee attack routine...

 

[Someguy]

Rav is right, it depends on yuor style...it is good for those mages who want to use magic to back up hacking, not the other way around... otherwise a fighter1/wiz9 is good enough

 

[Wolfspider]

And think how brutal this guy can be after a tensers transformation.

My Spellsword character has used this spell several times to devastating effect.

The problem with the prestige classes is that most of them require a lot of work from the GM to make them fit in the game. For a party of Tomb Raiders, a swashbuckler or gladiator is pretty worthless.

LOL! It's really ironic that you mentioned this exact party composition, 'cause I'm running a party right now consisting of a duelist (a conniving, money-hungry elf with a nasty temper), a gladiator (a half-orc slave whom the duelist freed from captivity), a pair of Temple Raiders, and a dwarven spellhammer (think Spellsword with a hammer--duh) who knows where all the good loot is. The party is a pretty effective group of treasure hunters, despite their eclectic nature.

As far as the Spellsword goes, I've really enjoyed playing one and I'll repeat that I think the class is balanced. With the various powers of the Spellsword, I've been able to wreak an amazing amount of havoc, even though I haven't had access to the most powerful spells.

 

[IanB]

Actually, putting your potions in your sword is a lot better than Brew Potion, for one big reason: You don't have to free up a hand and take a move equivalent action to get out the potion if you're already holding it in your hand and smacking people with it.

I've noticed that a lot of gamers don't seem to enforce making people take a MEA to get out a potion or wand or whatever - that makes a big difference in balancing abilities like this.

 

[bret]

I've been looking at SpellSword as well, although I was looking to reach it from a slightly different direction than normal: Barbarian/Sorcerer/SpellSword. I would have to use up one feat just to qualify (Heavy Armor proficiency), which would never be used because of the type of campaign it is. Probably take it as Barbarian 3/Sorcerer 4, SpellSword. Gives more BAB than I need to qualify, but avoids the XP penalty.

The BAB progression for SpellSword is within one of an evenly split Fighter/Wizard provided you brought the Wizard level up to an even value. Failing to do this could increase the BAB penalty.

The saves are better than the multiclass would get.

The SpellSword would be giving up a LOT of feats over the 'standard' fighter/wizard multiclass. Assuming they kept the levels even, you would loose at least 2 fighter and one wizard bonus feat and only getting back one of those at very high level.

The hit points would work out just slightly better than the fighter/wizard multiclass. Over two levels you would be gaining 4.5 * 2 = 9 vs. 5.5 + 2.5 = 8 hit points. Doing it as a Barbarian (with the d12 HD) would result in exactly the same average hit points.

The ability scores are going to be lower than a straight fighter or mage, since you will probably want to spread your scores out amongst at least three (Str/Con/Int or Cha) if not four (add Dex) abilities. This will most likely increase the hit point gap between a regular fighter and a SpellSword.

Provided that you've got a friendly cleric to help you store healing spells in your weapons, this is a great ability.

The reduced arcane failure is better than Still Spell mostly because it doesn't cost you a caster level. I'm curious as to how effective people have found this to be.

The thing I was most concerned about is if a SpellSword is still be powerful enough to act as a front line fighter. I'm mostly concerned about the loss of HP over a normal fighter, and if the magical enhancers would really make up for this.

 

[Michael Tree]

I agree that it's somewhat weak.

Compare a Fighter2/Wizard8/Spellsword 10 to a Fighter6/Wizard 14:

- The spellsword has 1 less level of spellcasting ability than the multiclass (13 vs. 14).
- The spellsword has a BAB 1 lower than the straight multiclass (13 vs. 14)
- The spellsword has an average of 7.5 more hit points than the multiclass (80 vs. 72.5).
- The spellsword has better Fort and Will saves but a slightly worse Ref save than the multiclass (F+12 R+5 W+13 vs. F+10 R+6 W+11)
- The spellsword has Channel Spell, Spellsword Cache, Ignore Failure 30%, and 3 feats. The multiclass has 6 feats, and has the option of taking Weapon Specialization.

Overall I'd say that's possibly a draw.

However, it just gets worse for the spellsword if the multiclass combination takes a prestige class instead of more fighter or wizard levels. A Fighter6/Wizard6/Mage of the Arcane Order 8 has greater power and flexibility.

A Fighter6/Wizard6/Incantatrix8 or Fighter4/Wizard6/Incantatrix10 is even grosser.

A Fighter4/Wizard6/Elemental Savant 10 has the same BAB as the spellsword, 2 more levels of spellcasting, and is immune to critical hits, poison, sleep, paralysis, stunning, and flanking, in addition to nice elemental spell bonuses, darkvision, and possibly the natural ability to fly. (It would have 13.5 less hit points on average though).

The only advantage that the spellsword has is that he can wear armor and cast spells. This can be quite nice, but with magic items that provide almost the same AC bonus without limiting movement or physical skills, it isn't overwhelmingly powerful. (If the multiclass takes a level or two in Duelist instead of fighter - to gain Int bonus to AC - the relative advantage is even lower).


As for fixes, changing the BAB to the good progression and removing the bonus feat probably wouldn't be overpowered. Another suggestion I've heard elsewhere would be to have the spellsword's full class level add to the previous spellcaster level to determine the level based effects of spells. That would make their spells somewhat more buff, and less vulnerable to dispelling.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I've run several sessions with a Spellsword and he was pretty good.

The trick is to remember that a spellsword is a FIGHTER/wizard, not the other way around.

Consider this:

8th fighter/ 4th wizard / 8th spell sword

BAB: +16/+11/+6/+1

Cast spell as a 9th level wizard. You don't use these levels to cast fireball and cone of cold. You use them to cast spells like Haste, Stoneskin, Fireshield, Expeditious retreat, stat boosting spell etc.

6 bonus feat.

Twice per day you can channel 5D4+5 (magic missile) through a normal attack.

You can wear a mithril full plate without arcane failure. Or a standard breastplate.

You can cache spell in your weapon.

What more do you need? Stronger than that and it would be overpowered.

I mean, compare this to the bladesinger PR class: one is fine, the other is banned by most DM because it's indecently strong.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Dmaple and Michael Tree have made some good points. I'm going to take anothe rlook at the spell sword when I get T&B back from my friend. The odd thing is when it 1st came out there was an outcry of it being too good mainly compared with the bladesinger.(the online bladesinger on the wizards sight is just sick)