Spellsword worth it?(3.5)

[PersonMan]

I'm playing in a game, and was planning on going into Spellsword, and was wondering: is it worth it? A 5/10 casting prestige class that lets you ignore some spell failure and do some spell channeling(into a melee weapon), along with a bonus feat. Full BAB, good Fort/Will save.

I'm planning to go into it via Fighter 1/CC* 1, grabbing one level of CC, then one fighter and another CC before entering Spellsword.

*Homebrew class, Crystal Caster, it has 3/4 BAB.

[Prime32]

Short answer: No, not really.

Longer answer: Use spellsword for a dip at best. Losing 5 caster levels is massive. Compare to abjurant champion.

[Keld Denar]

If you want to be REALLY bursty, taking the 4th level of Spellsword is actually pretty nice. And as long as you are taking 4, might as well take 5 since its full BAB and casting.

If you had a +1 Spellstoring Bloodstone weapon and were a Spellsword you could nova quite heavily.

Put a CL10+ Combust in Spellstoring, a CL 10+ Vamp Touch in Bloodstone, channel a CL15+ Orb of Fire with Spellsword, all tacked on an Empowered Whirling Blade (with Wraithstrike cast), the results would be devistating.

+5 Collision Greatsword with ~10 points of PA and ~30 Str (2d6 +20 +30 +10) avg 67
10d8 Combust avg 45
1.5x (5d8) Vamp Touch, empowered via Bloodstone avg ~34
15d6 Orb of Fire avg ~52
Total damage after empowered 297

For even more nova, Empower the Orb prior to channeling it, and Twin Whirling Blade instead of Empowering it.

If you aren't going for nova-style alpha strikes, you are probably better served with the versatility the extra 2 spellcaster levels you'd otherwise have would give you.

[jiriku]

People commonly take dips of 3 or 5 levels of spellsword. I generally don't see anyone recommending more than that. With the profusion of casters able to cast in light armor from the later splatbooks, it's declined in popularity, because now there are plenty of ways to get armored casting without losing caster levels.

[WarKitty]

Would it be worth it for a primary melee character? One of my fellow players is looking at it as a (currently) Fighter2/Sorc1.

[Person_Man]

No. Plenty of other prestige fish in the sea.

[jiriku]

It would depend on your player's build and how readily he has access to mithril +feycraft/githcraft armor. If, as the DM, you don't feel comfortable providing easy access to armor materials that are easy to cast in (mithril/githcraft/feycraft), then the class is much less advantageous.

Spellsword is referred to as a dip class because characters typically only stay in long enough to cast in a mithril chain shirt or mithril breastplate, then move on to another prestige class that offers better fundamentals.

Why is that? Well, If your PC has a high Dex, then he doesn't need to get enough levels in spellsword to cast in heavy armor. Contrariwise, if he has a low Dex, then he'll have trouble surviving for the 6-8 level interval in which he's paying his dues and working his way up to using heavy armor.

[Fax Celestis]

If you want channeling, three levels of Duskblade + Practiced Spellcaster is easier to stomach, IMO.

[WarKitty]

I'm away from books, is spellsword a full BAB class?

[lsfreak]

Spellsword1 doesn't cost you anything if you're going gish already, and makes it so you can wear mithril twilight thistledown fullplate without any ASF. As far as I'm aware, there's no other 'no-cost' way of getting it.

Yes, it's full BAB.

EDIT: Well, there's Greater Luminous Armor.

[Flickerdart]

Would it be worth it for a primary melee character? One of my fellow players is looking at it as a (currently) Fighter2/Sorc1.

Suel Arcanamach is better for a melee class - you get spells and free Extends on all your buffs!

[Keld Denar]

If you want channeling, three levels of Duskblade + Practiced Spellcaster is easier to stomach, IMO.

See, this I don't quite get. 3 levels of Duskblade costs you 3 spellcaster levels, while 5 levels of Spellsword only costs you 2 (one at 2, one at 4). Duskblade is unlimited, but only works on a single attack since its a standard action. Spellsword is only 3/day, but if you have a half a round to prepare it (or have a Belt of Battle to aquire extra move actions), you can combine it into a full attack action. Duskblade gives you a couple of minor spells (which, unless you blow ANOTHER feat on Practiced Spellcaster for Duskblade) aren't even gonna be maxed out. Duskblade gives you armored casting, but only with Duskblade spells, while Spellsword's ability works for your primary spellcasting class.

Spellsword is kinda decent with independant spellcaster PrCs like Suel Arcanamach. You can afford to lose a few spellcaster levels over the life of the character and still end up with 10/10 SA casting, whereas with a 20th level caster, you always feel like you are losing out on something in the end if you don't make it all (or at least most of the way).

[Eldariel]

It's great 1-level entry into Abjurant Champion as it requires 1 point less BAB allowing Pally 2/Sorc 4 enter AC without losing CLs. You also gain bonus to cover your ASF so you can wear some armor more easily (Twilight Githcraft Mithril Fullplates, for example). Other than that, there are some semi-decent builds with 5 levels to get Channeling, and 10 levels is alright in Gestalt for some actions but otherwise, na, you don't like losing that many caster levels. It's from early 3.5 when WoTC didn't really understand how bad losing CLs hurts. If it were made later, it'd probably be more like Jade Phoenix Mage, which could actually be somewhat playable.

[Fax Celestis]

See, this I don't quite get. 3 levels of Duskblade costs you 3 spellcaster levels, while 5 levels of Spellsword only costs you 2 (one at 2, one at 4). Duskblade is unlimited, but only works on a single attack since its a standard action. Spellsword is only 3/day, but if you have a half a round to prepare it (or have a Belt of Battle to aquire extra move actions), you can combine it into a full attack action. Duskblade gives you a couple of minor spells (which, unless you blow ANOTHER feat on Practiced Spellcaster for Duskblade) aren't even gonna be maxed out. Duskblade gives you armored casting, but only with Duskblade spells, while Spellsword's ability works for your primary spellcasting class.

Spellsword is kinda decent with independant spellcaster PrCs like Suel Arcanamach. You can afford to lose a few spellcaster levels over the life of the character and still end up with 10/10 SA casting, whereas with a 20th level caster, you always feel like you are losing out on something in the end if you don't make it all (or at least most of the way).

Mostly it boils down to me disliking being limited per-day.

[PId6]

Put a CL10+ Combust in Spellstoring, a CL 10+ Vamp Touch in Bloodstone, channel a CL15+ Orb of Fire with Spellsword, all tacked on an Empowered Whirling Blade (with Wraithstrike cast), the results would be devistating.

What's the Whirling Blade for? Channel Spell only affects the next target you hit with your weapon, so it's only going off once regardless of how many enemies you hit. I suppose hitting a few other guys for normal melee damage is nice, but I don't see the specific need for Whirling Blade as opposed to, say, a full attack.

Also, what is Empowering a Whirling Blade supposed to do? Empowering the weapon damage seems to be a sketchy interpretation at best, and I don't see anything else that would be affected by it.

[Keld Denar]

Weapon damage is variable damage. The static component of the weapon damage (the +str and PA and enhancment bonus) would all get mulitplied too. See the Magic Missile example in the PHB for details. The variable part (the 1d4) and the static part (the +1) are all combined before whole sum is multiplied. Similarly, the variable part (2d6 for a great sword) and the static part (+str, +PA, +enhancement) would be added together before being multiplied. Since the stored spells and channeled spells are all components of the weapon damage delivered, they would all be affected by whatever is affecting the delivery vehicle. Why wouldn't it be? There really aren't aren't any rules precident ruling for or against it, but there isn't much reason why it wouldn't be so.

Whirling Blade was mostly thrown in there because some things are too scary to want to close into melee with, and because Whirling Blade is a standard action, something you can do in a surprise round. Full attacking isn't really an option unless you have a source of Pounce (which tends to be unusual in most Gish builds).

[PId6]

Weapon damage is variable damage. The static component of the weapon damage (the +str and PA and enhancment bonus) would all get mulitplied too. See the Magic Missile example in the PHB for details. The variable part (the 1d4) and the static part (the +1) are all combined before whole sum is multiplied. Similarly, the variable part (2d6 for a great sword) and the static part (+str, +PA, +enhancement) would be added together before being multiplied. Since the stored spells and channeled spells are all components of the weapon damage delivered, they would all be affected by whatever is affecting the delivery vehicle. Why wouldn't it be? There really aren't aren't any rules precident ruling for or against it, but there isn't much reason why it wouldn't be so.

The problem with that interpretation is that the spell itself isn't providing the variable effect. The spell says that you get to make melee attacks against enemies in the area. That's it. The variable damage rolls are because you're making attacks, but the spell itself only causes you to make those attacks. If it said you can make 1d4 attacks, the number of attacks would be empowered, but the weapon damage itself would not. It'd be the same as if a spell asked you to make a skill check or a saving throw; the spell just tells you to make the check, but the Jump check (or whatever) isn't actually a result of the spell, but a result of an action that the spell allows you to do.

If you do go by the interpretation that the Empower would affect the melee attacks, then why wouldn't your attack roll be likewise affected? The idea of Empowering Whirling Blade to multiply the damage of your weapon attacks just seems too much of a stretch to me. Yes, it can be interpreted that way, since you're right that there's no real precedent either way. The result just seems rather absurd and a bit overpowered IMO. YMMV.