Wraith Strike on Duskblade without BAB loss

[Yogibear41]

Is there anyway to get Wraithstrike as a spell known for the duskblade without using a prestige class that is not full bab, assuming the extra spell known feat only lets you add spells from your own spell list to spells known.

[Deophaun]

You're a spontaneous caster, so UMDing a knowstone or a runestaff--or using a Drake-helm without UMD--will do it.

[Doctor Awkward]

You're a spontaneous caster, so UMDing a knowstone or a runestaff--or using a Drake-helm without UMD--will do it.

You can buy an Eternal Wand and stick it in a wand chamber on your weapon of choice.

Any arcane spellcaster can activate any eternal wand, regardless if the spell appears on their spell list.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I recommend just getting UMD and putting a Wand of Wraithstrike in your weapon. Per the Rules Compendium any spell trigger or spell completion item has the same activation time as the spell's casting time.


You can buy an Eternal Wand and stick it in a wand chamber on your weapon of choice.

Any arcane spellcaster can activate any eternal wand, regardless if the spell appears on their spell list.

True, but on an Eternal Wand it will be a standard action to cast, since those don't use spell trigger or spell completion for the activation method.

[Inevitability]

Precocious Apprentice (Wraithstrike) works until level 5 at least. Past that, it depends on your DM: do they rule that the spell sticks around after becoming able to cast 2nd-level spells?

[heavyfuel]

You won't lose BAB, but Ranger/Paladin + Sword of the Arcane Order will do the trick. Works better if you have access to to Prestige Paladin or Mystic Ranger and your DM allows you to use SotAO with them.

Arcane Disciple (Spell Domain) gives you access to Anyspell. Go nuts!

The Customize Domain feat from Dragon 325 + Arcane Disciple (Magic Domain) feat might work. You need to dip one level in a class that gives you access to Wraithstrike, which makes this a bit more complicated. But maybe if your DM doesn't allow Mystic Ranger/Prestige Paladin to make use of Sword of the Arcane Order, I'm pretty sure standard Ranger/Pally + SotAO + Arcane Disciple + Customize Domain works (even if I'm way too sleepy to be sure of it right now.


True, but on an Eternal Wand it will be a standard action to cast, since those
don't use spell trigger or spell completion for the activation method.

Seriously?! There has to be cheese involving long casting spells and eternal wands then!

[Rerednaw]

Is there anyway to get Wraithstrike as a spell known for the duskblade without using a prestige class that is not full bab, assuming the extra spell known feat only lets you add spells from your own spell list to spells known.

Does it have to be known? Custom wondrous item would 12k and you could use it all day. Or I suppose go continuous for 24k. Before crafting cost reductions....up to 82% discount depending on cheddar.

[Deophaun]

Seriously?! There has to be cheese involving long casting spells and eternal wands then!
Yes. An eternal wand of clairvoyance is quite nice.

[flappeercraft]

Well you could take the Arcane preparation feat and then dip 2 levels into Wyrm Wizard if you really want to get it that bad. Keep in mind you do lose BAB this way

[SirNibbles]

The Customize Domain feat from Dragon 325 + Arcane Disciple (Magic Domain) feat might work.

Customize Domain is on page 61 of Dragon Magazine #325, in case anyone was having trouble finding it.

[Doctor Awkward]

I recommend just getting UMD and putting a Wand of Wraithstrike in your weapon. Per the Rules Compendium any spell trigger or spell completion item has the same activation time as the spell's casting time.



True, but on an Eternal Wand it will be a standard action to cast, since those don't use spell trigger or spell completion for the activation method.

I can see the argument for that based on it's entry in the Magic Item Compendium, but the Eberron Campaign Setting is the primary source for Eternal Wands, and that book indicates that they use all the rules for wands except for the rule about the spell in it appearing on your spell list.

[Yogibear41]

You're a spontaneous caster, so UMDing a knowstone or a runestaff--or using a Drake-helm without UMD--will do it.

What exactly would be the UMD to use one of those? 21 to Emulate a class feature of a 1st level wizard? 23 for a 3rd level wizard? and would you make the check every time I wanted to cast said spell or would I make it hourly as the book of vile darkness example from the PHB.

[Deophaun]

What exactly would be the UMD to use one of those? 21 to Emulate a class feature of a 1st level wizard? 23 for a 3rd level wizard?
21. You are simply emulating the list, which does not require a specific level. The spell slot and caster level are provided by you, not the item.

and would you make the check every time I wanted to cast said spell or would I make it hourly as the book of vile darkness example from the PHB.
Once every hour.

I can see the argument for that based on it's entry in the Magic Item Compendium, but the Eberron Campaign Setting is the primary source for Eternal Wands...
That is not how the primary source rule works. The Eberron Campaign Setting is the primary source for Eberron, not magic items, not Eternal Wands.

That's like saying none of the spells updated in the Spell Compendium are updated, because each individual rule book is the "primary source" for the spells that appear in it. Primary source is based on topic specificity, not where the thing in question originated.

[Yogibear41]

If I failed an hourly roll would I be locked out of using it for 1 hour, or could I simply make the roll again as a new standard action(or whatever action I need to take) to activate it again for an additional hour.

[Deophaun]

If I failed an hourly roll would I be locked out of using it for 1 hour, or could I simply make the roll again as a new standard action(or whatever action I need to take) to activate it again for an additional hour.
As long as you don't roll a 1, you're golden to try again.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's like saying none of the spells updated in the Spell Compendium are updated, because each individual rule book is the "primary source" for the spells that appear in it.

Yes, that's exactly right. It's why you can choose to use the Fearsome magic armor property as it appears in Drow of the Underdark, rather than the updated one that appears in the Magic Item Compendium. It's also why you can choose to use material from the Complete Psionic Handbook, while ignoring the crappy rules changes that book made.

[Deophaun]

It's why you can choose to use the Fearsome magic armor property as it appears in Drow of the Underdark, rather than the updated one that appears in the Magic Item Compendium. It's also why you can choose to use material from the Complete Psionic Handbook, while ignoring the crappy rules changes that book made.
No. The reason you can do these things is that WotC does not have teams of ninjas executing gaming groups that deviate from the rules. The Fearsome armor property in DotU is dysfunctional; people use both because following the dysfunction is stupid (just like people don't require you to have LoE when using scrying, because the spell doesn't work as written). No one likes Complete Psionics, so people don't pay attention to it. It's no different than people who ban Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum, except for the reasons. That's all there is to it.

You get into a RAW argument on these, though, you're going to lose because RAW is too stupid to care. By RAW, you can only have one astral construct at a time. Sorry; them's the rules.

Meanwhile, people actually like MIC, it's a more common book than ECS, and lots of groups ban setting-specific content anyway. You're not going to find a majority of people willing to ignore RAW just because you want eternal wands to function like regular wands.

[Doctor Awkward]

No. The reason you can do these things is that WotC does not have teams of ninjas executing gaming groups that deviate from the rules. The Fearsome armor property in DotU is dysfunctional; people use both because following the dysfunction is stupid (just like people don't require you to have LoE when using scrying, because the spell doesn't work as written). No one likes Complete Psionics, so people don't pay attention to it. It's no different than people who ban Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum, except for the reasons. That's all there is to it.

You get into a RAW argument on these, though, you're going to lose because RAW is too stupid to care. By RAW, you can only have one astral construct at a time. Sorry; them's the rules.

Meanwhile, people actually like MIC, it's a more common book than ECS, and lots of groups ban setting-specific content anyway. You're not going to find a majority of people willing to ignore RAW just because you want eternal wands to function like regular wands.

So basically your argument then is that you either ask the DM to ignore the dysfunction between the ECS and the MiC, or you ask the DM to pretend that Eternal Wands actually are spell trigger items.

Then who cares?


...And seriously, how the **** does Scrying not work as written? It has a range of "See text" and nothing listed for "Target" or "Area".
What general rules is it breaking by existing that are not handled by the description?

[Deophaun]

So basically your argument then is that you either ask the DM to ignore the dysfunction between the ECS and the MiC, or you ask the DM to pretend that Eternal Wands actually are spell trigger items.
There is no dysfunction. MIC overrides ECS. Eternal wands work just fine.

Just because you don't like how they work does not mean that they don't.

...And seriously, how the **** does Scrying not work as written? It has a range of "See text" and nothing listed for "Target" or "Area".
What general rules is it breaking by existing that are not handled by the description?
Nothing in the description says it does not need line of effect nor line of sight. Compare to clairaudience/clairvoyance, which explicitly states "You don’t need line of sight or line of effect."

So, scrying, as written, requires you to stand within LoS and LoE of your target for 1 hour while you cast the spell. Ain't happening. That's why people ignore that. But by RAW you better be standing on a satellite in geostationary orbit and your target needs to be outside.

[Doctor Awkward]

There is no dysfunction. MIC overrides ECS. Eternal wands work just fine.

Just because you don't like how they work does not mean that they don't.

Nothing in the description says it does not need line of effect nor line of sight. Compare to clairaudience/clairvoyance, which explicitly states "You don’t need line of sight or line of effect."

So, scrying, as written, requires you to stand within LoS and LoE of your target for 1 hour while you cast the spell. Ain't happening. That's why people ignore that. But by RAW you better be standing on a satellite in geostationary orbit and your target needs to be outside.

Clairaudience/Clairvoyance also has a specific Range of Long, which requires a specific exception to overcome the general point of origin rule. This is a limitation not present in Scrying (which, again, states only "See text"). Or did you think you could just place a C/C sensor wherever you wanted to relative to the caster?


Also, just because you like and/or have no strong feelings in regards to the way that you think eternal wands work doesn't mean that's actually how they work. Or maybe your MiC has an additional line of text somewhere which states, "Despite their name, Eternal Wands are not actually wands, and do not use spell trigger activation"?

[Troacctid]

So, scrying, as written, requires you to stand within LoS and LoE of your target for 1 hour while you cast the spell. Ain't happening. That's why people ignore that. But by RAW you better be standing on a satellite in geostationary orbit and your target needs to be outside.
Why would it require line of sight? It's not a targeted spell.


Also, just because you like and/or have no strong feelings in regards to the way that you think eternal wands work doesn't mean that's actually how they work. Or maybe your MiC has an additional line of text somewhere which states, "Despite their name, Eternal Wands are not actually wands, and do not use spell trigger activation"?
Actually, it does say they use a command activation, not spell trigger.

[zergling.exe]

Why would it require line of sight? It's not a targeted spell.

Neither is scrying, it has no target line.

[Deophaun]

Clairaudience/Clairvoyance also has a specific Range of Long, which requires a specific exception to overcome the general point of origin rule. This is a limitation not present in Scrying (which, again, states only "See text"). Or did you think you could just place a C/C sensor wherever you wanted to relative to the caster?
Clairvoyance also starts with a C while Scrying starts with an S, and S spells need super exceptions.

Which makes as much sense as your argument, as range has nothing to do with the requirement for LoE.

You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect (such as conjuring a monster).

Effect: Magical sensor
This isn't that hard.

Or maybe your MiC has an additional line of text somewhere which states, "Despite their name, Eternal Wands are not actually wands, and do not use spell trigger activation"?
Mine does, actually:

Activation: Standard (command)

[lord_khaine]

Does it have to be known? Custom wondrous item would 12k and you could use it all day. Or I suppose go continuous for 24k. Before crafting cost reductions....up to 82% discount depending on cheddar.

What? no thats crazy. It would be more in the realm of 120.000 gp or so, and even thats kinda cheap.

[Doctor Awkward]

Clairvoyance also starts with a C while Scrying starts with an S, and S spells need super exceptions.

Which makes as much sense as your argument, as range has nothing to do with the requirement for LoE.


This isn't that hard.

Mine does, actually:

Yes, selective reading isn't very hard is it?



Let's simmer down a moment and, for the sake of reference, take a look at pg. 4 of the Spell Compendium:

Magic Items: Activating a spell completion item, activating
a spell trigger item, or drinking a potion is a standard
action even if the spell from which the scroll, potion, or
item is made can be cast as a swift action.

That right there used to be the general rule regarding wands and scrolls. The text on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#usingItems) has since been changed to reflect the most recent errata, which is also identical to what it says in the Rules Compendium on pg. 85 "Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores".

None of us know exactly when that rule was changed: the first printing dates for the SpC is December 2005, the MiC is March 2007, and the Rules Compendium is October of 2007, and the change could very well have been in any of those intervening months. Given that fact, you have no way of knowing if the description in the MiC is written to make the item an exception for the new general rules regarding spell trigger items, or only to be internally consistent with what the the general rules regarding magic items were at the time. Remember that the MiC was also trying to standarize a description format for magic items, which hadn't been done before. You can see this by comparing the magic items presented in Dungeonscape and Secrets of Sarlona, which were published just before the MiC, and the entries presented in Drow of the Underdark and Forge of War, which were both published immediately afterwards (Forge of War even has a sidebar on pg. 118 which explicitly notes this).

And since the Eternal Wands were not addressed in either the EBC or the MiC errata, you also can't say for certain if the the text description indicates that they follow all the rules regarding spell trigger items except the one regarding the spell needing to be on the casters spell list, or if it is stating that they are just slotless Wondrous magic items that can only be activated by arcane spellcasters. The MiC is also maddeningly unhelpful in that it placed Eternal Wands in the general category of "Tools", which are defined in the introduction on pg. 4 as a broad category encompassing "all magic items that must be held, consumed, or otherwise manipulated in order to function (rather than simply being worn)" and then added that "potions, scrolls, wands, and staffs are also considered tools."

And oddly enough the one time eternal wands are referenced in the Main 3.5 FAQ, it's in the category for questions regarding Wands, and not the category regarding Wondrous Items. Almost like someone else thought they were spell trigger items too.

In the end, the rules are unclear and you have very little to go on regarding their intent. So at best you are asking a GM to house-rule one way or another.


For further examples of selective reading:
Here are the general rules regarding Line of Effect. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#lineofEffect) Note carefully the terms "Range", "Target", and "Effect". Here is the rules that define Effect (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#lineofEffect) (note carefully the part where it indicates that you do not always have to see the spot where you want the effect to occur), and the rules regarding Aiming a Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#aimingASpell) in general, which tell you that it is sometimes up to the individual spells to tell you the where and who regarding a spells point of origin. Point of Origin is defined all over the place generally as "the spot where the effect begins".

Now that the general rules have been established, let's go back and look at how Scrying lacks a defined Range, Target, and Area in it's desription, and relies entirely on the text of the spell to define its use regarding the general rules for spells. And while we are here we can also see how this differs from C/C, which does specify a range, and would thus require an exception to allow it to function outside of line of effect.

There now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Take the feats Magical Training (PGtF) and Versatile Spellcaster (RotD).

Magical Training gets you a spellbook that you've already put a few 0-level spells into, and a few 0-level spell slots with which to prepare and cast those. Per the Rules Compendium, since you prepare spells from a spell book you can add more spells to it via the same method a Wizard uses. Spells in your spellbook are considered to be spells you know.

Versatile Spellcaster allows you to spend two spontaneous spell slots of the same level to cast any spell you know of one level higher. This allows you to spend two 1st level Duskblade spell slots to cast Wraithstrike, or two 2nd level slots to cast Extended Wraithstrike if you have Extend Spell. (The rules on increased casting time for spontaneous spells with metamagic only applies to spells with a normal casting time of a standard action or longer, Extended Wraithstrike still has a swift action casting time even from a spontaneous caster.)

[Deophaun]

That right there used to be the general rule regarding wands and scrolls. The text on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#usingItems) has since been changed to reflect the most recent errata, which is also identical to what it says in the Rules Compendium on pg. 85 "Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores".

None of us know exactly when that rule was changed: the first printing dates for the SpC is December 2005, the MiC is March 2007, and the Rules Compendium is October of 2007, and the change could very well have been in any of those intervening months. Given that fact, you have no way of knowing if the description in the MiC is written to make the item an exception for the new general rules regarding spell trigger items
OMG, read the fricken MIC:


[Action Type] (command): Command activation means that a character speaks a command word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed. A command word is the key to the item’s lock, as it were. It can be a real word such as “Vibrant,” “Square,” or “Horse,” but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is a seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You cannot activate a command word item in the area of a silence spell or if you are unable to speak.

[Action Type] (spell trigger): Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a knowledge of spellcasting and a single word that must be spoken. This means that if a wizard picks up a spell trigger activation item (such as a wand or a staff) and that item stores a wizard spell, she knows how to use it. Specifically, anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
The MIC recognizes a difference between Command and Spell Trigger items:

They.
Are.
Not.
The.
Same.

Eternal Wands are Command, not Spell Trigger. The rules for Spell Trigger items are completely irrelevant to the functioning for Command items.

In the end, the rules are unclear
As unclear as polished crystal. Only someone who thinks "Oh, a word was used," and who has no concept that words actually exist within a context where they link together to have meaning would be confused. Such as someone who says this:

Here are the general rules regarding Line of Effect. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#lineofEffect) Note carefully the terms "Range", "Target", and "Effect".
Look! It mentioned "ranged weapons!" It used the word "range!" Doesn't matter how it used it, it used it! So it must mean you need a range entry! That's how words work!

I think I'm done here.

[Doctor Awkward]

OMG, read the fricken MIC:

The MIC recognizes a difference between Command and Spell Trigger items:

They.
Are.
Not.
The.
Same.

Eternal Wands are Command, not Spell Trigger. The rules for Spell Trigger items are completely irrelevant to the functioning for Command items.

As unclear as polished crystal. Only someone who thinks "Oh, a word was used," and who has no concept that words actually exist within a context where they link together to have meaning would be confused. Such as someone who says this:

Tell me, what insight do you have into the development process that leaves you in a position to declare an item to be one thing or another thing based solely on your personal interpretation of the rules text?

For someone who claims to have such a thorough grasp of context, you seem to have very little grasp of the context of the rules at the time that the book was written.

Once again: It is entirely possible that, when the MiC was written, the general rule that all spell trigger items took a standard action to activate had not yet been changed. And they listed the activation method like that only for the sake of consistency with the general rules of D&D. And speaking of "OMG read the fricking book":


[Action Type] (spell trigger): Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a knowledge of spellcasting and a single word that must be spoken. This means that if a wizard picks up a spell trigger activation item (such as a wand or a staff) and that item stores a wizard spell, she knows how to use it. Specifically, anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Gosh golly, that sure sounds like it could overlap a little with a command activated item to me. How can you tell them apart? Especially when there are ZERO entries in the entire MiC that list (spell trigger) as the activation type. Not even the Runestaffs, which are explicitly defined as being spell trigger items.

You seem to have all the answers, so what gives?

It's really hard for me to take you seriously on this when you happily spout out contradictions like "Scry doesn't work by RAW because it doesn't say in the description that you don't need line of effect" and in the next breath say, "Eternal Wands are not spell trigger items. You don't need text in them that tells you they aren't, even though they are called wands, and seem to follow all the rules for wands, because their activation is listed the exact same way as all wands and staves would have been listed in this format before the errata was made."



As unclear as polished crystal. Only someone who thinks "Oh, a word was used," and who has no concept that words actually exist within a context where they link together to have meaning would be confused. Such as someone who says this:

Look! It mentioned "ranged weapons!" It used the word "range!" Doesn't matter how it used it, it used it! So it must mean you need a range entry! That's how words work!

I think I'm done here.

Ah, yes. The old "I'm-right-and-you-can't-prove-otherwise-so-I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home" defense.

Classic.

Well when you are ready to have a discussion like an adult-- or if you aren't an adult, then when you are ready to stop acting like a stroppy teenager-- I'll be around.