duskblade-- too powerful?

[MarkB]

Ah, that's a good point, and I see what you're saying. I still don't interpret it that way, however, because it is unlike most other "attack" precedents, in which an effect is resolved at the end of the individual attack action and not at the end of the attack sequence / round, which is what I believe you are saying. Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round." (In fact, you could conceivably run into the situation of being hit later in the round by the enemy you were trying to shock who would not have actually been up because you were waiting to apply the shocking grasp damage until all possible attacks by you were resolved.)

Why would you need to wait until the end of the round to resolve the effect? Since it has the same effect upon any individual target no matter how many it affects, it can affect each target immediately whilst still only affecting each target only once.

 

[evilbob]

...Since it has the same effect upon any individual target no matter how many it affects, it can affect each target immediately whilst still only affecting each target only once.

While certainly possible, I'm not sure how one would get to this interpretation. If the spell affects each target you hit in a round, and it affects the target immediately upon a hit, why would the spell not affect the same target more than once? I guess my point is just that it seems to me as though "affecting the same target more than once" would be implied in that line of reasoning, since it seems more similar to other precedents, while "not affecting the same target more than once" doesn't seem to really follow without being expressly described.

 

[Mort]

Ah, that's a good point, and I see what you're saying. I still don't interpret it that way, however, because it is unlike most other "attack" precedents, in which an effect is resolved at the end of the individual attack action and not at the end of the attack sequence / round, which is what I believe you are saying. Your way might imply that you couldn't even apply your shocking grasp damage until you made sure you were finished making any AoOs that round as well, since you must wait until all hits are resolved for the entire round to see who is affected, and I do believe that AoOs are included in "each target you hit in melee combat that round." (In fact, you could conceivably run into the situation of being hit later in the round by the enemy you were trying to shock who would not have actually been up because you were waiting to apply the shocking grasp damage until all possible attacks by you were resolved.)

Edit: Oh, and to the OP: yes, I agree that having something on the order of 11 shocking grasps at level 13 that can be delivered potentially three (or more with AoOs) times to a single target is extremely powerful. However, so are level 7 spells like finger of death and mass hold person, which a full wizard could (theoretically) do at the same level.

I interpret the ability to allow the duskblade to affect each target with the spell once. Any time you start using the phrase “well, it could be interpreted” and add in the fact that that interpretation sounds way over the top, it is almost always best to use the less problematic interpretation.


I think the duskblade is an interesting class and certainly not overpowered:

1) It’s extremely multi attribute dependant: good strength needed obviously, good dex needed especially at first because no heavy armor, good con needed – in melee a lot with d8 hit die, good Int needed because otherwise being able to cast spells means nothing, and also for saves on those spells. The bard, for example, is not nearly so dependant because almost all abilities as well as spell casting sync with Cha. The duskblade id on the same level as the monk for multi attribute dependency.

2) The class is extremely feat starved. By 10th level, the class gets 5 feats (counting combat casting) to define an arcane and combat focus. The fighter gets 9, the wizard gets 7, a standard gish (ftr1/wiz6/ek3) gets 8.

3) The class knows very few spells: 11 spells (3rd level max and discounting 0 level) by 10th level – bards know 14 (4th level max), sorcerers know 15 (5th level max). A wizard gish is of course not limited in spells known, though the minimum spells known at 10th is 17 (4th level max). A sorcerer gish knows 11 (4th level max).

4) The class spells are mostly of the 1 shot variety, meaning the spells will burn away very fast. Also many of the “big” fighter buffs and “big” wizard spells are missing, no: enlarge, magic missile, orb spells, mirror image, wraithstrike, haste – any many others I’m sure I missed.

5) The class resists multi-classing because the abilities are so spread out (actually I think this is a good thing and should be more the norm for core classes).

These are of course the negatives, which make it balanced, I still think it would be a good class to play.

 

[Victim]

While certainly possible, I'm not sure how one would get to this interpretation. If the spell affects each target you hit in a round, and it affects the target immediately upon a hit, why would the spell not affect the same target more than once? I guess my point is just that it seems to me as though "affecting the same target more than once" would be implied in that line of reasoning, since it seems more similar to other precedents, while "not affecting the same target more than once" doesn't seem to really follow without being expressly described.

Because it's restricted by target. The spell has an effect on each target, not on each successul attack. Otherwise, it would say each hit or each successful attack without mentioning targets in the first place.

 

[Nightfall]

Well for one, I think AE classes in general are a little stronger than their 3.5 counterparts. Also, the mageblade has 3 medium saves to a duskblades 2 GOOD saves...and the big difference, the duskblade has a full BAB. A full BAB is a big bonus for any fighter type.

I'm glad you said in general since there are some that are much weaker than 3.5 counterparts. I'll grant you the BAB and saves, but compartively speaking, I don't see why they couldn't have given duskblade a full compliment of spells (IE 0-9 level). It would make him even more useful. I have no problem with a limited selection, just a wider range would be nice.

 

[frankthedm]

Yeah, being surrounded by enemies with only medium armor and D8 hitdice is pretty risky.

The class assumes access to Mithral Full Plate.

So the highest dex one needs is 16. Not that high at higher levels.

 

[evilbob]

Actually, the class assumes "Battle Caster" from the Complete Arcane - 1 feat at level 1 means you're in medium armor till 4, then heavy after that. Dex is really not required (although 12 would be nice) for this class.

 

[Nightfall]

A twelve would help with those pesky reflex saves...

 

[frankthedm]

Actually, the class assumes "Battle Caster" from the Complete Arcane - 1 feat at level 1 means you're in medium armor till 4, then heavy after that. Dex is really not required (although 12 would be nice) for this class.

Are you positive you are reading them correctly?

 

[Nightfall]

Uhm actually I'm not sure he is Frank. See when I played a duskblade a while back, I took that as my 2nd character feat (I was human so I had two other feats), and that allowed me to cast in heavy armor. Or was it 6th level...anyway point is I'm sure it doesn't grant you the ability to continually upgrade.