Spellsword - is it weak?

[James McMurray]

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.

To say that casting spells in armor is not useful is to ignore the ability of teamwork in a group. With Mithril Full Plate and a Shield you can have your cleric buddy cast Magic Vestments on you and get (assuming we use the 20th level examples that people keep spouting out) you can cast spells with 0% arcane spell failure and have an AC a full 16 points higher than the wizard who has to use only Mage Armor. Then, tack special abilities onto your armor, and watch the other guy start to falter even farther behind in being a good Fighter / Wizard. I think that +20 falls into the category of "overwhelmingly powerful" when compared to +4.

And of course, except for Bracers of Armor (whih our Spellsword doesn't need), all of the items you talk about will stack with the armor worn.

 

[Wolfspider]

McMurray is right. My Spellsword character has an Armor Class of 40. That's pretty darn impressive for a guy who can sling spells as an 11th level magic user.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Wow.

Hey wolf, in how many high level campaign are you playing at the same time?

 

[Wolfspider]

Well, the lizardfolk druid is my main character that I play. He's been involved in a long campaign centered around the Hool Marshes in Greyhawk, battling the forces of the Scarlet Brotherhood and trying to prevent refugees fleeing the lands to the south from ruining his beloved swamplands.

The Spellsword character is a translation of my original 1st (and 2nd) edition D&D character into D&D 3E terms. I thought Spellsword perfectly represented the old fighter/magic-user of yore. I've only played him a couple times recently, in beefed-up versions of the "Headless" and "Demonweb" adventures from Dungeon.

I've played a couple one-shots as well.

 

[hong]

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).

I don't think the spellsword is "significantly worse off" by any means. Looking at the class abilities, they're essentially what you'd get if you advanced as fighter and wizard separately, and at the same rate -- 10 levels of spellsword isn't very different to 5 levels of fighter and 5 levels of wizard. The BAB is maybe slightly lower, but that's balanced by slightly better Fort and Will saves.

Other differences: if you took 5 levels each of fighter and wizard, you'd get 1 extra wizard feat and 2 or 3 extra fighter feats. The spellsword only gets one extra feat (although it can be either a fighter or wizard feat) but they also get the channel spell and spell failure abilities. Also the spellsword has the advantage that they get all the class skills of both base classes at each level.

So I don't think the spellsword is that bad. It isn't overly powerful like some of the other PrCs that have been published, but that's a Good Thing. It's a nice way for the player to say his character is something unique, as opposed to just another multiclassed combo.

 

[hong]

To say that casting spells in armor is not useful is to ignore the ability of teamwork in a group. With Mithril Full Plate and a Shield you can have your cleric buddy cast Magic Vestments on you and get (assuming we use the 20th level examples that people keep spouting out) you can cast spells with 0% arcane spell failure and have an AC a full 16 points higher than the wizard who has to use only Mage Armor.

Another advantage of physical armour is that you can cast other enchantments on it besides just pumping up the armour bonus. Fortification is very useful, for instance, if you're fighting a bunch of rogues. The X resistance abilities are good anywhere. Ghost touch can be a lifesaver against incorporeal baddies. Etc.

 

[der_kluge]

Ok, I hate dredging up a nearly two-year old thread. (Ok, I don't hate it that much). But, I have the power to search, so too bad.

Anyway, my current player is playing this, and he and I have both observed that we feel his current character is probably the weakest in the group. He's using the SpellSword as more of a SpellBOW kind of character - relying on his archery skills versus his sword skill.

His argument, and I agree, is that the channel spell ability is nice, but given that you could *miss* with your melee attack, you lose that ability. So, that is a significant weakness to that ability that I think has been overlooked in this discussion.

My thought to improve his class was:
- reduce the overall armor check penalty reduction (maybe 10-15%)
- add in another +1 spellcaster level
- improve the BAB to Good
- remove the brew potion (ala spellsword) ability (this is hard to implement IMC, because I've removed XP)
- add in another bonus feat.

Thoughts?

 

[kilamanjaro]

The 3.5 version in The Complete Warrior does have the best BAB progression, and the spell channel ability is different. It's closer to what you want, I think.

 

[Hardhead]

Heh. When I first saw this thread, I thought "Huh, I wrote a thread with the same name once." Didn't know it was the same thread!

Anyway, it's nice to hear the one in the Complete Warrior is slightly buffed. Nice. IMO, though, the Eldritch Knight should be avoided like the plague. It's gone too far.

 

[der_kluge]

Don't have CW, but I imagine that my player will appreciate the changes I'm proposing. I think it will be more in line with what he's looking for. I'll see if I can find CW somewhere to peruse their version.

Thanks