The Duskblade: Redundant?

[airwalkrr]

Just got my copy of the PH2 yesterday and I've been thumbing through it. (I always go through and at least glance at every page in a new book, reading tidbits here and there that I find interesting, before forming a general opinion on it. Anyway...) It seems to me like the Duskblade is an entirely unnecessary class. It's a fighter/mage. What is so original about that? Yes, they can cast in armor, they get free quickened spells (horrible idea btw), and they get an obscenely high number of spells per day, but the class is really just redundant. A spellsword is practically the same thing. It seems to me like all this class does is bring back the elf class from OD&D. Anyone else find this class unappealing for this reason? (Forgive me if threads have already discussed this topic as I have ignored most ph2 threads until now since I didn't have the book and didn't think I could contribute much useful to the discussion.)

 

[Nightfall]

I just wish it was more like Mageblade from AU/AE. Then it might be more fun.

 

[Stalker0]

At 1st glance, the duskblade seems a bit overpowered to me. Full BAB, 2 good saves, and with the ability to cast spells like quickened true strike 1/day can allow it to deliver extraordinary damage when needed (10th level PA with 2 handed weapon = +20 to damage and +10 to attack).

I think the duskblade isn't so redundant as its an evolution. The fighter/mage concept is one a lot of people want, but I think many feel has never been accomplished. Fighter/wizard multiclass certainly doesn't get it done, and others feels Prcs like the spellsword don't provide the right stuff either.

I do appreciate that WOTC is continuing to try new things. Now they are trying a base class with full BAB and caster level but trying to limit the abilities and spells to balance it out. With playtesting, we'll see if they succeeded. But no matter my initial impressions of the class, I like that WOTC continues to look at the problem from different angles, and perhaps somewhere along the way they will find an answer the majority of people are happy with.

 

[Nightfall]

I was happy with Mageblade. I just wish it had more D&D flavor. But Duskblade is okay by me. I don't feel overpowered by it, at any level.

 

[Particle_Man]

1) It is a core class. Thus you can be a fighter/mage at level 1, AND you don't have to worry about meeting prerequisites.

2) It keeps the BAB at max.

I would say that it is a *replacement* for the spellsword, since it seems to be better.

 

[airwalkrr]

I wasn't really complaining that it is overpowered, although it might be. I reserve that opinion until I see it in action. It just doesn't seem that incredibly original. I suppose I have to agree with Stalker0 though. I do like that WotC is looking at the issue from other angles. I really just wish they would fix multiclassing. In AD&D the fighter/mage was too powerful. In 3e the fighter/mage sucked until eldritch knight, spellsword, and feats like practiced spellcaster were introduced, and even then they were costly options. Now the duskblade comes along, and while I don't necessarily feel like it is overpowered, there no longer seems to be any point to playing a fighter/mage, eldritch knight, or spellsword anymore.

 

[Aaron L]

Unless you, say, want a full spell list with other than short range attack spells. The Duskblade is a great class, but it has a very narrow spell selection. No flight, invisibility, hell, no lightning bolts or fireballs.

 

[shilsen]

I wasn't really complaining that it is overpowered, although it might be. I reserve that opinion until I see it in action. It just doesn't seem that incredibly original.

I'm just theorizing here, but I don't think the intent with the class was for it to be particularly original. The aim was to provide a way to play the warrior-mage archetype (and a specific aspect of it, namely the warrior who uses magic to make himself better in a fight) from 1st level and as a single-classed character.

Now the duskblade comes along, and while I don't necessarily feel like it is overpowered, there no longer seems to be any point to playing a fighter/mage, eldritch knight, or spellsword anymore.

Unless you want to play a fighter/mage with interest in the many PHB (and other) spells that aren't on the duskblade spell list, or a primary spellcaster with some martial ability (e.g. eldritch knight), or something else that the duskblade's narrow focus doesn't fit.

 

[BadMojo]

I'm just theorizing here, but I don't think the intent with the class was for it to be particularly original. The aim was to provide a way to play the warrior-mage archetype (and a specific aspect of it, namely the warrior who uses magic to make himself better in a fight) from 1st level and as a single-classed character.

Unless you want to play a fighter/mage with interest in the many PHB (and other) spells that aren't on the duskblade spell list, or a primary spellcaster with some martial ability (e.g. eldritch knight), or something else that the duskblade's narrow focus doesn't fit.

I think the Duskblade is a great idea. The "gish" concept has been part of D&D for ages, so it's nice that you can play it without multi-classing. I think it's a common enough archetype that it deserves its own class.

And I definitely agree that a multi-class fighter/mage is going to have access to a lot of spells that the Duskblade would love to get his hands on. The duskblade could never be a primary spellcaster in a party and probably wouldn't even be a very effective back-up arcane caster. The focus is very much "chop/blow things up".

 

[Mort]

For the duskblade to be redundant there would have to be another way to do the fighter/magic-user route from level one; there isn't in the core books or any other WOTC supplement to date. I think it's a great idea that's been sorely lacking.

As for being overpowered, even at 1st glance it doesn't seem to be:
extremely limited spell list, mostly spells that last 1 round or less and very few spells that can affect more than one target.
Extremely limited selection even among those spells (2 1st at 1st level and choice of 1 spell per level from there).
Big problem with MAD (need high strength and high int, high dex is needed early because no heavy armour, high con doesn't hurt because they areexpected on the front line but have d8 hit dice).
only standard feat progression (with the exception of combat casting) so lots of hard choices.