Duskblade vs Magus

[Man on Fire]

Out of simple curiosity, I decided to star thread to comparing 3.5 Duskblade and it's Pathfinder counterpart, Magus.
Simply speaking, which do you think, from both combat and versality-oriented perspective, is better?

[GoatBoy]

Magus has much more versatility since it has a larger and more varied spell list, and it isn't limited by spells known.

Duskblade wins out in terms of raw damage, since it can use two-handed weapons, has a higher BAB, and use the same spell for multiple attacks once they hit level 13, I think.

Duskblade is really boring compared to Magus, in my opinion. Higher BAB and an overpowered late-game ability is a small price to pay for the fun and flexibility of the Magus.

[Psyren]

I'd say Magus is a bit more powerful overall. Duskblade can put out more raw damage (full BAB + channel) but its list isn't nearly as strong or versatile as that of the Magus, it's too focused on damage spells and not enough utility.

They're both T3 though so it's largely academic.

psyrogue'd by GoatBoy

[Barsoom]

Duskblade is "I attack channeling Vampiric Touch again" made into a whole class. It's not bad power-wise, but I'd never play it unless the DM was kind enough to expande the spell selection somewhat.

Magus is really what the Duskblade should have been.

[WhatBigTeeth]

In the "assume no other party members and assess self sufficiency" environment that people like when talking about tiers or class powers, the Magus does have a wider range of resources to draw from, so would probably be marked as more powerful.

In an actual game, where you already have somebody spending actions to throw battlefield control spells and party buffs around - and do both jobs better than either magus or duskblade - the Duskblade's more formidable damage output almost always makes it the one I'd prefer in a party.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think Duskblade's level 13 full attack channel is the turning point; before then I'd say Magus is stronger, but after... that is really, REALLY nice....

Magus has the better spell list; Duskblade has more spells/day
Duskblade has better BAB and iirc armored casting; Magus can buff w/ Arcana to largely make up for it
Magus has better action economy, able to cast + full attack from early levels.
Duskblade has better support simply because 3E stuff is more powerful than PF stuff. Knowledge Devotion > any combat feat at all in PF, for example.

I think they're pretty close in power overall, I definitely like Magus better. More varied and interesting, and while still a bit more DPR-focused than I'd like... not nearly as bad as the duskblade's one-trick pony of power attacking arcane channeled damage spell w/ know devotion and burning spells on arcane strike and sacking hp on blade of blood all for MOAR damage!

[Psyren]

In the "assume no other party members and assess self sufficiency" environment that people like when talking about tiers or class powers, the Magus does have a wider range of resources to draw from, so would probably be marked as more powerful.

In an actual game, where you already have somebody spending actions to throw battlefield control spells and party buffs around - and do both jobs better than either magus or duskblade - the Duskblade's more formidable damage output almost always makes it the one I'd prefer in a party.

Redundancy is not a dirty word. Having two party members that can do some of the same things, especially when the party has limited resources (spell slots, actions) is never a bad thing, so long as each does bring something unique to the table.

Yeah, your party might have a wizard that can drop a Grease or Enlarge Person instead of you. Or it might not. Or he might be grappled across the room, or disabled, or covered in goo from a tanglefoot bag, or charmed by the enemy dryad. These things happen "in actual games" too. Or maybe he only prepared 2 today when you could really use 3. And so on.

There's also the other elephant in the room - high damage classes lead to DM arms races. No DM likes the encounter they've spent days preparing easily one-shot by a super-channeling duskblade, mailman or ubercharger, so if this happens a couple of times they will be obliged to buff things up to compensate - throwing in resistant monsters, increasing hitpoint totals. But with a duskblade - like an ubercharger or other one-trick pony - you take away the alpha strike potential and there isn't a whole lot left.

Finally, the Magus has unlimited spells known; you can grab that scroll of Mount or Wall of Ice or Stone to Flesh just on the offchance it might come in handy, and lose very little if it doesn't. The Duskblade however has to be very careful which spells it takes as spells known, asking the age-old sorcerer question "do I see myself using this every day?"

All of these problems come up "in actual games." Tiers are not merely academic considerations, though again these classes are roughly on par anyway.

[GoatBoy]

If someone was going to play a Duskblade over a Magus because the Duskblade deals more damage, why not just go with an ubercharger or mailman instead?

The Magus feels like someone who augments martial skill with magic, while the Duskblade feels just like a warrior with a glowing sword, when you compare the two.

The Duskblade isn't a bad class or a weak class by any means, it just doesn't do what it tries to do as well as the Magus does. Of course, it's more than likely that the Magus designers took a very good look at the Duskblade during the design process.

Why play a Favored Soul when you've got the Oracle?

[Seerow]

One thing people are forgetting about Duskblade: Its full attack channel only works when attacking multiple targets. You can apply a given touch spell only to one target. That takes away a lot of the use you'd expect from it.

[Eldonauran]

When I played strictly 3.5e, Duskblade was my favorite class. Full BAB, good HD and a spontaneous caster that uses INT? Yes, please.

When I started playing Pathfinder, I wanted to use Duskblade because I didn't like the look of the Magus. Spellbook? Prepared casting? Less spells per day? Medium BAB? Ick, get away!

Once I actually studied the Magus and found out what it could do, I was like ... :belkar:. I got my DM to let me convert the Duskblade into a Magus and I never looked back.

My two favorite Archetypes for Magus are Hex Magus and Staff Magus.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, I forgot Hex magus and the other, lesser archetypes. Hex Magus means you're tossing around the same unlimited use save-or-die Su attacks a Witch is, and instantly makes Magus the clear winner power-wise from level 4 (when you get the first hex) on.

[Snowbluff]

One thing people are forgetting about Duskblade: Its full attack channel only works when attacking multiple targets. You can apply a given touch spell only to one target. That takes away a lot of the use you'd expect from it.


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.

... Not sure if I agree. Each time the enemy is attacked by the DB, they become a target, and the spell affects them again.

As for DB versus Magus, the extra action economy is of the Magus is nil, since the Full Attack + Spell is about the same as Full Channeling, and DB gets Quick Cast anyway. Expanding a spell list is relatively simple in 3.5, and a familiar is really good with DB. I think I like DB better.

Besides, that Magus is obviously the Eldritch Knight. He's just posing as a gish-in-a-can.

[rypt]

... Not sure if I agree. Each time the enemy is attacked by the DB, they become a target, and the spell affects them again.

Nope. That's not how targets work. Each opponent you hit during your full attack is considered a separate target and can be affected once, and only once, by your channeled spell. The functionality of full attack channeling is pretty well understood at this point and this issue has been explicitly addressed in the FAQ.

[Grim Reader]

rypt is right. Fun as a fullchannel Harm would be:(

Anyway, doesn't the Magus top out with sixth-level spells compared to the Duskblades 5th?

I've been thinking about doing a more in-depth comparison of the two. I want both in a campaign, for reasons of in-world history, but I need to tinker to make them more even. Archetypes for the DB Im thinking.

[rypt]

The spell level difference is significant, and it's certainly part of the reason why the Magus is so much more versatile. Damage is really the only thing the Duskblade has going for it, but comparing a Duskblade's damage to a Magus' damage is complicated by the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder rules. The Power Attack and Arcane Strike feats are staples of the Duskblade in 3.5, but both of those feats are very different in Pathfinder, with the Arcane Strike feat in particular being vastly less effective under Paizo's ruleset.

[WhatBigTeeth]

Anyway, doesn't the Magus top out with sixth-level spells compared to the Duskblades 5th?
Yes, but that point's not necessarily so clear cut, because the Duskblade's spells are frequently at discounted levels compared to the Sorcerer/Wizard list, while the Magus's are not. So, for instance, both of them have Disintegrate among their highest-level spells.

But the Magus certainly does have a better spell list, especially when it comes to buffing, and spell combat does give it the opportunity to use those buffs efficiently.

[Grim Reader]

There is another issue to that though: As has been pointed out, adding spells is fairly easy in 3.5. Adding spells of a higher level than you can cast is not so easy. Having sixth-level slots to add sixth level spells to is a big advantage compared to only having fifth-level ones.

[Chained Birds]

I would agree Magus is better, though I do like the whole Duskblade getting Full Base Attack over the Magus' 3/4th.

Though they are both fun Tier 3 classes to play.

[Big Fau]

Nope. That's not how targets work. Each opponent you hit during your full attack is considered a separate target and can be affected once, and only once, by your channeled spell. The functionality of full attack channeling is pretty well understood at this point and this issue has been explicitly addressed in the FAQ.

The FAQ is not RAW. This has been debated to death and back, and the FAQ has been proven unreliable as a resource.

[Snowbluff]

Nope. That's not how targets work. Each opponent you hit during your full attack is considered a separate target and can be affected once, and only once, by your channeled spell. The functionality of full attack channeling is pretty well understood at this point and this issue has been explicitly addressed in the FAQ.
THE FAQ? You mean someone's FAQ.
Full Attacks have each attack being targeted individually, leaving the wording ambiguous. Unless the ability resolves after you make all attacks, rather than at each attack, I don't see how this would be how it works.

DB looks a lot more PrC friendly if this is the case.

[rypt]

THE FAQ? You mean someone's FAQ.
Full Attacks have each attack being targeted individually, leaving the wording ambiguous. Unless the ability resolves after you make all attacks, rather than at each attack, I don't see how this would be how it works.

Yes, "THE FAQ." The Official D&D Game Rule FAQ (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)?

You're a level 20 Duskblade fighting a Pit Lord. At some point during combat, you use a full round action to full attack the Pit Lord while channeling disintegrate vampiric touch. You have a BAB of 20, plus an extra attack from haste for a total of five iterative attacks. Three of your attacks hit.

How many targets did you attack? How many targets did you hit?

The correct answer to each of these questions is, of course, one. You hit a single target three times.

By your absurd interpretation, however, you attacked five targets and hit three of them.

Consider the Kelpstrand (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040131a) spell. Note the second paragraph:

If you can create more than one kelpstrand, you can direct the strands at any different targets in range, or all against a single target. A creature targeted with multiple kelpstrands has to make separate Grapple checks or Escape Artist checks against every kelpstrand currently grappling him to escape.
See how that works? A single target. Even though each strand is targeted individually with separate attack rolls and grapple checks (as is each iterative attack during a full attack), you may still direct multiple strands to a single target (just as you may direct multiple iterative attacks to a single target).

[Snowbluff]

Yes, "THE FAQ." The Official D&D Game Rule FAQ (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)?

You're a level 20 Duskblade fighting a Pit Lord. At some point during combat, you use a full round action to full attack the Pit Lord while channeling disintegrate. You have a BAB of 20, plus an extra attack from haste for a total of 5 iterative attacks. 3 of your attacks hit.

How many targets did you attack? How many targets did you hit?

The correct answer to each of these questions is, of course, one. You hit a single target 3 times.

By your absurd interpretation, however, you attacked 5 targets and hit 3 of them.5. The Pit Lord Is not a target when not being targeted. A channeled spell and its attack resolved, and then then the next attack hits and is resolved.



Consider the Kelpstrand (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040131a) spell. Note the second paragraph:

Not convincing. It's not a full attack. Targeting and subjects work slightly differently.

[Norin]

I asked for the same thing in the 3.5 QA thread and got the answer rypt is giving.

I was hoping for snowbluff's version but it's not working that way unfortunately.

[Snowbluff]

I asked for the same thing in the 3.5 QA thread and got the answer rypt is giving.

I was hoping for snowbluff's version but it's not working that way unfortunately.

The person you should be asking is your DM. Present him with the arguments and ask what he has to to say.:smalltongue:

[rypt]

5. The Pit Lord Is not a target when not being targeted. A channeled spell and its attack resolved, and then then the next attack hits and is resolved.How attack and damage rolls are resolved has nothing to do with their being directed to a single target or multiple targets. Consider the description of the glorious master of the elements spell:
Additionally, each time you successfully make an attack on a target using this spell, you gain a cumulative +2 bonus on the damage roll for each subsequent attack on the same target.


Not convincing. It's not a full attack. Targeting and subjects work slightly differently.
Speaking of "convincing," you might try providing some support or evidence of your positions given that there has yet to be a single person in this thread who has agreed with any one of them.

Having said that, targeting and subjects do not "work slightly differently." A subject is a target of a spell (or spell-like effect or ability). That's it. Any and all rules that apply to targets, generally speaking, apply to subjects as well. Please find me a spell description that references a subject that does not also include a target line (kelpstrand does not references a subject, by the way, only targets).


The person you should be asking is your DM. Present him with the arguments and ask what he has to to say.:smalltongue:
Sorry, but a given DM's interpretation has no place in a discussion about the Rules as Written. Despite your best efforts to suggest otherwise, this is not some kind of grey area in the rules that is still openly debated. This is a settled matter, and any vestigial uncertainty should have been eliminated 5+ years ago when this issue was addressed by "THE FAQ."

If you want to make your own houserule in your own game about the Duskblade's full attack channeling, then that's your prerogative. But to ascribe a personal houserule to a Written Rule is to a do a disservice to your players and to this community as a whole.

Frankly, this whole discussion reeks of you having made a Duskblade, and now find yourself clinging to the ways in which you thought the character worked or was going to work.

[Norin]

The person you should be asking is your DM. Present him with the arguments and ask what he has to to say.:smalltongue:

If it was all about making your DM believe thing X works like Y instead of Z, I would not be playing D&D any more.

It would all be a set of odd rules that I managed to convince my DM of using in my favour. :smallbiggrin::smallwink:

It would be "cheating".... sort of.

[Big Fau]

Yes, "THE FAQ." The Official D&D Game Rule FAQ (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a)?

You're a level 20 Duskblade fighting a Pit Lord. At some point during combat, you use a full round action to full attack the Pit Lord while channeling disintegrate. You have a BAB of 20, plus an extra attack from haste for a total of five iterative attacks. Three of your attacks hit.

First, Disintegrate cannot be channeled via the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling class feature. Second, show me where in the rules a spell that designates multiple targets can only affect a target once per casting. EVERY SINGLE SPELL that can do this is either an AoE (and thus designed to affect all targets once, and only once), or have a specific clause built into them that prevents them from affecting the same target twice.

By your logic, Magic Missle can only ever deal 1d4+1 damage to any individual target because it's the same spell targeting the same creature.

Reference: Chain Lightning (You choose secondary targets as you like, but they must all be within 30 feet of the primary target, and no target can be struck more than once.), Magic Missile (which lacks both Chain Lightning's text and a clause that allows it to hit the same target multiple times, although it has text that allows it to strike the same creature more than once), Fireball (which spells out how many times it affects each creature in the radius).


Frankly, this whole discussion reeks of you having made a Duskblade, and now find yourself clinging to the ways in which you thought the character worked or was going to work.

That is uncalled for.

[MukkTB]

In the "assume no other party members and assess self sufficiency" environment that people like when talking about tiers or class powers...

Sometimes it pays to assume that everyone sitting at the table is an idiot. Why else would there be large threads in the roleplaying general section where people discuss that very thing?

[rypt]

First, Disintegrate cannot be channeled via the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling class feature. Second, show me where in the rules a spell that designates multiple targets can only affect a target once per casting. EVERY SINGLE SPELL that can do this is either an AoE (and thus designed to affect all targets once, and only once), or have a specific clause built into them that prevents them from affecting the same target twice.

By your logic, Magic Missile can only ever deal 1d4+1 damage to any individual target because it's the same spell targeting the same creature.

Reference: Chain Lightning (You choose secondary targets as you like, but they must all be within 30 feet of the primary target, and no target can be struck more than once.), Magic Missile (which lacks both Chain Lightning's text and a clause that allows it to hit the same target multiple times, although it has text that allows it to strike the same creature more than once), Fireball (which spells out how many times it affects each creature in the radius).
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here, as nothing I've said has any actual implications for chain lightning or magic missile, and at no point were we discussing AoE spells.

That said, you're right about disintegrate. I just picked a spell that had been mentioned previously in the thread. Let's make it vampiric touch instead.

You cannot channel a spell like vampiric touch more than once against a single target when using Arcane Channeling specifically because Arcane Channeling states that "the [channeled] spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round." That's as far as this goes. You appear to have greatly misunderstood the scope of this argument.

[GoatBoy]

Sometimes it pays to assume that everyone sitting at the table is an idiot. Why else would there be large threads in the roleplaying general section where people discuss that very thing?

Because sometimes people are unreasonable and don't seem to understand that I'm right and they're wrong. And when I pay them the courtesy of pointing this out, as well as the way their tone suggests limited understanding and poor hygiene, they have the gall to be offended. I don't get it!

Then again, I suppose there's someone who would miss the dripping sarcasm in the above post.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Besides, that Magus is obviously the Eldritch Knight. He's just posing as a gish-in-a-can.

I disagree, actually. The Magus and the Eldritch Knight go about gishing in very different ways. An EK is more powerful in an antimagic field, and an EK can cast more poweful spells, but a Magus can do both at the same time. If you play a Magus, you want to be in melee all the time. But as an Eldritch Knight, you can switch between melee and range on a round-to-round basis. They perform similar functions, but have very different styles.

[Snowbluff]

I disagree, actually. The Magus and the Eldritch Knight go about gishing in very different ways. An EK is more powerful in an antimagic field, and an EK can cast more poweful spells, but a Magus can do both at the same time. If you play a Magus, you want to be in melee all the time. But as an Eldritch Knight, you can switch between melee and range on a round-to-round basis. They perform similar functions, but have very different styles.

Look at the art. :smallbiggrin:It's clearly the same guy. He just put on a nametag that said 'Magus'.