Better: Duskblade or Duskblade/Wizard/Ultimate Magus?

[EyeontheMountain]

In every instance I choose my targets, it's just that the targets happen to be the same person. If I happen to drop Guy A with my second attack, I can choose to target Guy B or Guy C and if I hit then they get channeled into, because they're the target of that attack. It's along the same line of reasoning as spells that affect Person Touched, but you can still cast them on yourself because you're a Person that can be Touched if you so choose.

You cannot target the same target more than once with an ability or spell. That is a basic rule of targeting.

 

[wildstarsreach]

Aha, I see the problem.

No, a 13+ level Duskblade channeling a spell with a full attack enacts the spell fully each time they hit in that round. If the spell has a duration longer than 1 round or allows for plenty of touches (like, say, Chill Touch) the spell still expires at the end of the Duskblade's turn, instead of following the spell's normal behavior.

So, say I'm a 13th level Duskblade. I channel a CL 13 Vampiric Touch into my sword and unleash a full attack on some poor bastard. I'm lucky and all 3 attacks connect. My target, in addition to being hacked up 3 times, also subject to 3 seperate 6d6 Vampiric Touches.

It's mean. It's really mean. It's also the culmination of the Duskblade schtick.

I play a duskblade, I think that this is a wrong interpretation.

At less than 13th level, I channel and hit only once even if I have multiple attacks. Now with regards to chill touch, how does it work? If a wizard casts, he can affect upto his level in attacks. IE a 6th level wizard affects upto 6 targets.

Channeling as a full attack at 13th level should affect every target hit for chill touch.

Now a wizard casting Vampiric touch can only affect a target once. So to should an arcane channeled attack. You choose which sucessful attack expend the vampiric touch. Not each attack on a different target. You can only gain this benefit once per casting IMO. I think that the FAQ is misinterpreting this.