PDA

View Full Version : help with duskblades



ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-10-23, 02:18 AM
one of my players is playing a duskblade. he brought up some possible proken combinations with the level 13 ability they have with their arcane channeling.

Some help with clarification please.

Would the touch spell be rolled and resolved seperately for each attack? or would it be rolled once and the same roll effect all the targets? If the second, would the damage be spread out or full damage to each target?

Wings of Peace
2009-10-23, 02:30 AM
This is a point at which I would say it's up to you. The ability says each target during the full attack can be affected. To me this means that if you interpret a full attack against one creature as singularly targeted the spell would trigger once. If you decide each attack is it's own targeting schtik then it can hit every time. The big thing to remember is that your own attacks do not become touch attacks. So while you still have good AB your likelihood of hitting the enemy to trigger the spell still goes down some.

weenie
2009-10-23, 04:21 AM
How you decide to roll it is up to you, but by the rules every target hit should be fully affected. I'm not completely sure how this works with vampiric touch though. They all get full damage, but I'm not sure if you get temporary HP from each one of them or just from the one who got the most damage.

Zaydos
2009-10-23, 04:38 AM
I remember having to search for a ruling whether it could affect the same creature multiple times and getting a no, but I'd say it's the DM's choice. With Vampiric Touch multiple temp hp don't stack so I'd say only the highest.

Darrin
2009-10-23, 05:47 AM
Would the touch spell be rolled and resolved seperately for each attack? or would it be rolled once and the same roll effect all the targets? If the second, would the damage be spread out or full damage to each target?

My understanding of how it works... you do not roll a separate touch attack in addition to the attack roll. In this case, the attack roll with a melee weapon replaces the touch attack. Each target the Duskblade hits with a melee attack gets hit with the same touch spell.

The damage is not divided between targets, each target gets hit with the full effect once. If the duskblade hits the same target more than once... I *think* he only gets hit with the spell effect once, but that may be up to a DM call.

JeenLeen
2009-10-23, 07:36 AM
My DM and I had a little trouble figuring out the RAW for Duskblade, but this is what we concluded it to mean.

When doing a full attack, you can select and expend a touch spell.
This touch spell is added to your attack and affects every target hit once (no extra roll required, but SR applies).
The spell triggers after attack of the full attack is complete, regardless of the order of attacking who; they go off at the same time.

So, if I hit 1 enemy three times, that one guy gets 1 spell hit on him (1 trigger).
Or, if I hit 3 enemies, each one gets the spell on them once (3 triggers).


He did let the temporary HP stack, but I think that's because we didn't know that temporary HP do not stack at that point. (Although maybe he saw it as one spell, just hitting multiple people, akin to a War Weaver's ability with buffs.)

The J Pizzel
2009-10-23, 08:27 AM
My understanding of how it works... you do not roll a separate touch attack in addition to the attack roll. In this case, the attack roll with a melee weapon replaces the touch attack. Each target the Duskblade hits with a melee attack gets hit with the same touch spell.

The damage is not divided between targets, each target gets hit with the full effect once. If the duskblade hits the same target more than once... I *think* he only gets hit with the spell effect once, but that may be up to a DM call.

Second this for the most part. This is what we did. First off, when channeling a touch attack spell through the melee attack, you don't roll a touch attack. You use the melee attack roll. And it's against the baddies normal AC, not touch.

Also, didn't channeling the spell turn the attack in a standard action, so you couldn't possibly get second attacks.
(disclaimer: haven't played 3.5 in about a year, might end up sounding like an idiot)

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-23, 08:30 AM
Also, didn't channeling the spell turn the attack in a standard action, so you couldn't possibly get second attacks.

That's teh basic ability. It improves to be a full attack at 11th or 13th.

I'd agree with JeenLeen, and also propose that Vampiric Touch would give the best temp. HP (if you roll multiple times). I'd roll each one individually (different daamge for different folks), just out of habit.

Nerd-o-rama
2009-10-23, 08:33 AM
My understanding of how it works... you do not roll a separate touch attack in addition to the attack roll. In this case, the attack roll with a melee weapon replaces the touch attack. Each target the Duskblade hits with a melee attack gets hit with the same touch spell.

The damage is not divided between targets, each target gets hit with the full effect once. If the duskblade hits the same target more than once... I *think* he only gets hit with the spell effect once, but that may be up to a DM call.This is entirely correct, except that (as The J Pizzel noted above), you can't channel a spell during a full attack until you get the level 13 class feature that explicitly lets you do that. And even then, as you say, your channeled spell can only effect each target during a full attack once (so it's to your advantage to spread out your attacks among a group, pure damage-wise). On the plus side, you only expend one "casting" of the spell on a full attack.

JeenLeen
2009-10-23, 10:38 AM
That's teh basic ability. It improves to be a full attack at 11th or 13th.

I'd agree with JeenLeen, and also propose that Vampiric Touch would give the best temp. HP (if you roll multiple times). I'd roll each one individually (different daamge for different folks), just out of habit.

An important thing for Vampiric Touch, if I understand the channeling right: as the spells go off after all the physical damage is dealt, if you kill a target with the physical damage alone, Vampiric Touch will not affect them and thus do you get temporary HP. (Quite relevant if you're using it as a temporary healing factor in battle.)

And, yes, I was referring to when you can do it as a full-attack. At lower levels, as others have stated, it is a standard action (1 attack).

Melamoto
2009-10-23, 10:51 AM
I thought it to mean that you would simply get to cast a touch spell while doing a full attack, and channel the spell through melee hits. If the spell only has 1 charge, you only get 1 charge. That's how I interpreted it.

Korivan
2009-10-23, 11:50 AM
Op: let me guess, Vampiric Touch right? Had a guy use a potion to enlarge themselves, swift cast dimension hop into the middle of a heavy group, with a reach weapon with the whirlwind ability channeled Vampirc Touch. The DM subtracted the weapon damage first, then the player got the left over HP (+10 per monster as the spell says.). Since it was only one casting, the DM ruled that it worked that way. But as the DM, your more then justified in allowing just one creature giving him the HP.

Eldariel
2009-10-23, 11:56 AM
Vampiric Touch gives temp. HP. Last I checked, they don't "stack" in the sense that if you have temp HP and get more, you don't add the new value to the old one.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2009-10-23, 12:25 PM
OK thanks, this was a pain for me to try an figure out. honestly it looks poorly worded in the book, but its not like wizards hasnt done that before right? lol

So by my understanding this will be what i tell my player.

In a full attack when you hit multiple targets and channel a spell you roll and resolve your weapon damage first then each target you hit will also be effected by the spell you channeled. You will roll the spell damage as though you cast the spell individually for each target hit. in the case of vampiric touch you will only gain the HP from the highest roll. temp HP do not stack.

that sound clear and accurate to you guys?

The J Pizzel
2009-10-23, 01:29 PM
OK thanks, this was a pain for me to try an figure out. honestly it looks poorly worded in the book, but its not like wizards hasnt done that before right? lol

So by my understanding this will be what i tell my player.

In a full attack when you hit multiple targets and channel a spell you roll and resolve your weapon damage first then each target you hit will also be effected by the spell you channeled. You will roll the spell damage as though you cast the spell individually for each target hit. in the case of vampiric touch you will only gain the HP from the highest roll. temp HP do not stack.

that sound clear and accurate to you guys?

I like it. You should be a lawyer!!!

Korivan
2009-10-23, 01:40 PM
Vampiric Touch gives temp. HP. Last I checked, they don't "stack" in the sense that if you have temp HP and get more, you don't add the new value to the old one.

How he figured is that the difference is that they arn't stacking. Its still all applied from just a single casting of the spell. That the stacking rules applied to multiple castings. Its a grey area thats left up to the DM's discretion. But in general go with the more restrictive. Its easier.

Eldariel
2009-10-23, 03:53 PM
Single casting of the spell applied multiple times. It cannot exceed the base spell's limits, it merely does it multiple times and gaining Temp HP multiple times does not really do anything. I don't really see the gray area here.

Frosty
2009-10-23, 05:31 PM
The gaining of temp hp multiple times is sometimes important if the enemy had some sort of backlash ability that deals damage to the attacker every time the attack lands a successful hit.

Korivan
2009-10-24, 02:05 AM
Single casting of the spell applied multiple times. It cannot exceed the base spell's limits, it merely does it multiple times and gaining Temp HP multiple times does not really do anything. I don't really see the gray area here.

In the end it really doesn't matter what we see, but rather what the DM rules. Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad. In this case it led to my buddy being nigh invincible...untill the DM simply switched his tactics. Turned him utterly useless.