Duskblade Full attack and Arcane Channeling.

[eleazzaar]

I'm playing a L5 Duskblade (3.5 no Pathfinder), and tonight he got hasted, and so had an extra attack.  My GM (using reasoning i don't remember) said that he can't use arcane channeling and multiple attacks in the same turn.  This doesn't mesh with what i've read about the dusk blade, but i can't put my finger on it why it is wrong.

By RAW is he right?  If not how can i prove it?  This is not an issue of a house rule, but (hopefully) his lack of familiarity with the class.

[wotmaniac]

from levels 3-12, only works on a single attack.  gotta wait 'til level 13 to get the full attack option.
HERE's the class.

Haste gives you an extra attack as part of your full-attack action; NOT an extra standard action. (I suspect that this is the significant detail)

[NunoM]

Your DM, and wotmaniac, got it right, but just completing...

The Duskblade's 3rd level ability requires a standard action to cast a spell as part of an attack action. In this case, you could only benefit from the +1 to attack rolls granted by haste.

From 13th level on, you can channel a spell as part of a full-attack action. Now the Haste really kicks in to full effect, and you can have that extra attack. (BTW, just remember that the spell only affects each target once. Multiple hits on the same target won't cause multiple deliveries of the spell)

[phaedrusxy]

(BTW, just remember that the spell only affects each target once. Multiple hits on the same target won't cause multiple deliveries of the spell)

Is this the case for spells that merely do damage? Or just status effects? I've always thought this interpretation seemed like an unnecessary "stealth" nerf to the class.

[Stratovarius]

(BTW, just remember that the spell only affects each target once. Multiple hits on the same target won't cause multiple deliveries of the spell)

Is this the case for spells that merely do damage? Or just status effects? I've always thought this interpretation seemed like an unnecessary "stealth" nerf to the class.

It's the way the ability is written, at least from a RAW perspective. Applies to all spell types, regardless of effect. Does mean if you're handy with TWF or similar, you can land a single target status effect on a whole host of monsters in an ideal situation.

[phaedrusxy]

(BTW, just remember that the spell only affects each target once. Multiple hits on the same target won't cause multiple deliveries of the spell)

Is this the case for spells that merely do damage? Or just status effects? I've always thought this interpretation seemed like an unnecessary "stealth" nerf to the class.

It's the way the ability is written, at least from a RAW perspective. Applies to all spell types, regardless of effect. Does mean if you're handy with TWF or similar, you can land a single target status effect on a whole host of monsters in an ideal situation.

Yeah, but this demotes this ability from "I go ape-sh!t crazy on the BBEG" to "great cleave on steroids"... One of these is much more useful than the others... and you had to invest 13 levels in the class to get it... instead of PrCing out/etc. Really... it makes me want to bail out of the class even more at 3rd, which I'd already have wanted to do, if I were playing one...

[Stratovarius]

Well, yes, but you did just sound like you were expecting good class design from the same book that delivered the Knight!

It would certainly be much better if it allowed it to hit on each attack, but that's not how it's written. Then again, WotC has never created a well done spell channeling class, so hardly a surprise. Spellsword, Arcane Archer, this. I suppose Raumathari Battlemage is the closest. It's like they're terrified of someone making a gish that might use magic for something other than buffs.

[wotmaniac]

I'm in complete agreement with PXY.
The list of touch spells is already anemic; this type of further nerfing is just unacceptable.  The ability's description doesn't say you can't target the same guy multiple times.
It's sloppy writing.  "you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round": if I have 3 attacks that round, and swing all 3 attacks at 1 dude, then I have targeted him 3 times -- the sword+spell doesn't care who I hit, as far as the sword+spell is concerned, I still have hit 3 targets

[Stratovarius]

That's fine and lovely, but the way it is written the spell still affects the target once. It's this part that matters: "the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." It affects each target you hit in melee once that round, allowing for multiple creatures to be hit, but not creatures hit multiple times. It does not say "once per hit" or anything else.

Does this make it crappier than it needs to be? Yes, it does. Is it probably a result of WotC freaking out over a TWF Vampiric Touch spell being used on a BBEG? Yes. However, that's how they wrote it. You can houserule it to be more sensible - I certainly do. Doesn't change the way WotC wrote the class ability, though.

[wotmaniac]

Right here, you're adding words that aren't there; resulting in an overly restrictive interpretation.

Call it houseruling if you want, I really don't care.  It's otherwise maybe a 3-5 level dip; and that's clearly counter to the intended design goal of the class (all the classes in that book, for that matter).

[Stratovarius]

Right here, you're adding words that aren't there; resulting in an overly restrictive interpretation.

Call it houseruling if you want, I really don't care.  It's otherwise maybe a 3-5 level dip; and that's clearly counter to the intended design goal of the class (all the classes in that book, for that matter).

I'm not adding anything. No matter how many times you hit a target with a full attack action, it's still one target. Thus it triggers the spell once.

There was a fairly recent thread that went over this in detail. Can't find the link with a search though.

[phaedrusxy]

I know: I've read the arguments. The fact that there was an argument is evidence by itself that the text is not 100% clear, and can be interpreted multiple ways. What I'm saying is that as DMs (and a community), we should choose to allow the more liberal interpretation, in the interest of making the class better. Screw what the "consensus" was, or even intent.

[Stratovarius]

I know: I've read the arguments. The fact that there was an argument is evidence by itself that the text is not 100% clear, and can be interpreted multiple ways. What I'm saying is that as DMs (and a community), we should choose to allow the more liberal interpretation, in the interest of making the class better. Screw what the "consensus" was, or even intent.

This whole thing does make me want to make an Arhosan Duskblade - something that's a nice combination of Arcanist and Champion, but without the empty class structure of the Duskblade. Currently missing anything Gishy in the setting aside from PrCs anyway.

[wotmaniac]

Oh, I'm sure I was on the shitty end of that one, too.
The word "once" is never mentioned in the ability description (RE: 13th-level Full).  Yet you (et.al., previously) consistently ADD that word.
Again, the sword+spell doesn't care whether it's 3 targets once each or 1 target 3 times -- it literally can't tell the difference.
Such as:
- swing #1: target = goblin #123
- swing #2: target = goblin #123
- swing #3: target = goblin #123
That's 3 targets, in that with each swing, each swing individually and independently targeted a creature.  The only thing that knows/care that all 3 of those targets were one-in-the-same is the target itself (and, well, me personally).  Sure, spells that specifically call out "multiples don't stack" are their own thing, and are adjudicated accordingly.  But otherwise, it doesn't matter.

The ability as interpreted by not-me is crippled, lame, and lazy; and not worth the ink that printed it.  wiz/sorc + spellsword is leaps and bounds better than Duskblade-according-to-not-me; given the timeline of publication and the intentional evolution of class design in the intervening time, the not-me duskblade doesn't even fit into the paradigm.

[eleazzaar]

Well, at least i can use spells like "Chill Touch" that work for multiple hits, and as long as i don't cast it as part of a full attack, i can get the spell damage on subsequent attacks multiple times on the same opponent and/or in the same turn.

If i were going to argue that he could do full attack & arcane channeling pre L13, i would point out this from the SRD on Full-round actions:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

So if you don't have to decide if it is a full attack until after your first attack, then any thing that can legitimately occur in that attack action shouldn't invalidate the full attack.

But obviously until L13 the spell damage would only take effect once.

[phaedrusxy]

Well, at least i can use spells like "Chill Touch" that work for multiple hits, and as long as i don't cast it as part of a full attack, i can get the spell damage on subsequent attacks multiple times on the same opponent and/or in the same turn.

If i were going to argue that he could do full attack & arcane channeling pre L13, i would point out this from the SRD on Full-round actions:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack
After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

So if you don't have to decide if it is a full attack until after your first attack, then any thing that can legitimately occur in that attack action shouldn't invalidate the full attack.

But obviously until L13 the spell damage would only take effect once.

I've actually seen people argue that if you channel Chill Touch as a Duskblade, that the spell only affects the target once and then is discharged, due to the wording on their arcane channeling ability.

I think this is BS... but just passing on another "interpretation" that I've seen.

[wotmaniac]

"interpretation" is such a strong word there.   

[Stratovarius]

I've actually seen people argue that if you channel Chill Touch as a Duskblade, that the spell only affects the target once and then is discharged, due to the wording on their arcane channeling ability.

I think this is BS... but just passing on another "interpretation" that I've seen.

That is BS. That's not resolving the effect of the spell, that's resolving the spell, which is something completely different. It's not even that hard to tell apart. 

[eleazzaar]

Well, at least i can use spells like "Chill Touch" that work for multiple hits, and as long as i don't cast it as part of a full attack, i can get the spell damage on subsequent attacks multiple times on the same opponent and/or in the same turn.

To clarify the DM is letting me us Chill touch for more than one strike (actually he pointed it out to me), i just wanted to make sure that wouldn't be effected by the Full attack issues.

[deadkitten]

Honestly, I know your Dm probably wouldn't let you but the pathfinder magus works like the duskblade should have. The way its class abilities are worded mean that the ony thing that the duskblade has going for it is a shit ton of spell per day to fuel arcane strike.

Vampiric touch isn't that good on a duskblade either. It actually says thf weapon damage is dealt BEFORE the spell is delivered so you can't TH powerattack with hunters eye active for shit tpns pf temporary hp.

that. was the main reason I ever wanted to use duskblade and I wad heartbroken when I saw that it did not work.