Duskblade Arcane Channeling?

[barna10]

Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly. The Duskblade can, as part of a full attack action, channel a spell so that everything it hits in a round is effected by a touch spell.

So, a Duskblade using two weapons can use one touch spell 6-8 times in one round by 17th level or so.

Or, a Duskblade could do the same as part of acharge action if it had Pounce.

Or, a critter with lots of attacks could do even more as it channeled the spell through each of it's attacks.

Also, RAW a round lasts until the character's next action so a Duskblade should still channel the spell into any AOO it preforms before his/her next action since the text says "..,and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round."

Anyone see flaws in any of this?

[hymer]

I see a possible flaw: The spell only "affects each target you hit". It doesn't affect the same target multiple times with the same casting, nor does it affect them if it misses. For this reason, it's extra useful for duskblades to use a reach weapon, so they can have plenty of targets within reach when channeling.

[LTwerewolf]

One of the reasons our group refers to duskblades as blenders.

[Norin]

Arcane Channeling (Su): Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack. Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.

At 13th level, 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. Doing so discharges the spell at the end of the round, in the case of a touch spell that would otherwise last longer than 1 round.

Emphasis mine.

It occurs to me that it's possible that at say a lvl 17 Duskblade with bab +17/+12/+7/+2 can use arcane channeling vs 1 foe to hit him once with the channeled spell as part of the first attack (+17), then hit the same foe 3 more times (at +12, 7 and 2) without the extra channeled spell damage (or effect).

BUT - vs say 10 foes that stand around him, using full attack channeling he can channel the spell through all the attacks he lands on different foes, dealing out the channeled spell multiple times.

edit - oh, i was writing too slowly. Anyways, i hope what OP asks is correct RAW and not what i suggested above.

[barna10]

I can see that as a perfectly valid take on it RAW, but is that really RAI? Why wouldn't a shocking grasp effect shock the same person 5 times?

[hymer]

Because Duskblades nova quite well enough as it is.

[barna10]

I don't know. Even the fluff text under "Combat" states that the Duskblade is most effective when it singles "out and focus(es) upon defeating a single opponent." Why make the signature ability of the class encourage attacking multiple opponents when the idea is for the class to attack things one-on-one?

Also, it might be worth mentioning that the ability specifically states "target" and not "opponent". This leaves it sort of fuzzy . The "targets" of your strikes could all be the same opponent.

[barna10]

I looked in the FAQ and the Sage felt that the spell cast through Arcane Channeling should only affect any particular target once. HOWEVER, in the ruling directly above this one the FAW states that if a spell is Arcane Channeled and should have been capable of affecting multiple targets the target struck gets hit by all charges of the spell!

Soooooo, which is it? A spell can only affect a single target once or a spell can affect a single target more than once?

Also, I disagree with the Sage on another point, that only melee touch spells can be channeled. If only melee touch spells can be channeled, many of the spells on the already meager Duskblade spell list are completely out of place. Melf's Acid Arrow for a gish? Polar Ray? While both are useful they don't fit the theme. Now, channel either of those and it suddenly makes sense.

Let's look at a brother of the Duskblade, the Spellsword. Granted, the Spellswords Channel ability is nowhere near as good as the Duskblades, but it allows the channeling of ANY spell, not jsut touch spells. Therefore IMO allowing the channeling of ranged touch spells is perfectly ok.

[jaybird]

That sounds like being able to use your channeled spell on every target you hit once, with multiple uses allowing you to hit the same target multiple times. In other words, if you would have been able to hit the same target multiple times anyway, you can do so. Otherwise, you only get to hit each target once.

[Roland St. Jude]

I looked in the FAQ and the Sage felt that the spell cast through Arcane Channeling should only affect any particular target once. HOWEVER, in the ruling directly above this one the FAW states that if a spell is Arcane Channeled and should have been capable of affecting multiple targets the target struck gets hit by all charges of the spell!

Soooooo, which is it? A spell can only affect a single target once or a spell can affect a single target more than once?I agree with you on this and so do the DMs I've played with. I think Sage resolved the ambiguity here the wrong way. But I see the limitation he's trying to put into place and the sense of the argument.


Also, I disagree with the Sage on another point, that only melee touch spells can be channeled. If only melee touch spells can be channeled, many of the spells on the already meager Duskblade spell list are completely out of place. Melf's Acid Arrow for a gish? Polar Ray? While both are useful they don't fit the theme. Now, channel either of those and it suddenly makes sense.

Let's look at a brother of the Duskblade, the Spellsword. Granted, the Spellswords Channel ability is nowhere near as good as the Duskblades, but it allows the channeling of ANY spell, not jsut touch spells. Therefore IMO allowing the channeling of ranged touch spells is perfectly ok.This I disagree with. The flavor of the class isn't "channel everything!" It's a class that can fight, cast, and embrace his dual nature and empower melee with spells. There's a line early in the class description about how a duskblade "zaps his enemies" or some such, and that's pretty much how I've seen it. He channels some spells, fires off some rays, and has some mobility/utility magic. I think making him able to channel everything (like rays) is less interesting and makes less sense.

[barna10]

I may have worded that wrong. I only meant that I think he should be able to channel melee and ranged touch attacks, not any spell. Sorry for the confusion.

[DEMON]

While I have seen the 13+ Archane Channeling interpreted as once per enemy many times because to the "the spell affects each target you hit" clause, I myself believe it's just arguing semantics. Anyways, it doesn't say it only affects each target I hit once
, so technically speaking, if there was a way to hit more targets with one swing, it should affect all of the targets I hit... and then again on iteratives.

I know that I shouldn't involve common sense into DND discussion, but really, if the spell holds on the weapon for a whole round, allowing me to hit 10 different guys with it, how is that different from hitting the same guy 10 times during the round? Besides the arbitrary "you can't do it as that will be too OP" ruling.

But RAI I do believe full attack channeling on the same target is fine.

On a side note, if we take into account the proposed expanding of Duskblade's spell list as discussed in the previous thread... well try not to break the game too much by channeling something too wicked :smallwink:


I may have worded that wrong. I only meant that I think he should be able to channel melee and ranged touch attacks, not any spell. Sorry for the confusion.

On this one I am with the others. While it might be a fine house rule for you (and a bit of a workaround if expanding the spell list is not an option), RAW, he can only channel the (melee) touch spells.

[barna10]

Not to nitpick, but RAW it is "touch spells". The word melee only appears as "melee attack".

[DEMON]

Not to nitpick, but RAW it is "touch spells". The word melee only appears as "melee attack".

That's why I used the brackets :smallsmile: AFAIK the touch spell is a spell that uses melee touch attack.


Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target.

[barna10]

Fair enough. I was reading the section of the PHB and missed the transition from "Touch Spells" to "Touch Attacks".