Updated Spellsword PrC

[Aetis]

Spellsword is one of the earlier gish PrCs, often eclipsed by newer classes like the Duskblade and the Abjurant Champion.

I focused on what I consider Spellsword's two signature abilities: ability to cast in armor, and spell channel.

The rework is listed here.

[Xasten]

You may want to add a few more caster levels in there. One of the reasons it was never really used is that both EK and Abjurant champion suffer little to no CL loss. Any solution to make this PrC more attractive should probably consider mitigating that problem.

[Aetis]

Hmmm. I wouldn't want the new spellsword to be stronger than EK or ACh.

What would you recommend regarding spellcaster progression?

[Goaty14]

What would you recommend regarding spellcaster progression?

Delegate the class to having full caster levels (or one lost CL, if the class features are *that* good), and then balance the class features around that. Balance the class features around the CL, not the CL around the class features.

[Aetis]

I'm aiming to have the PrC run in and beat things with a sword, instead of being a spellcaster that traded one level of spellcasting for more hp and armor.

[Xasten]

I'm aiming to have the PrC run in and beat things with a sword, instead of being a spellcaster that traded one level of spellcasting for more hp and armor.

The problem you'll have is that your prereqs pretty much necessitate a level or two of fighter to get the proficiencies. EK you can qualify for with the militia feat while staying straight wizard.

Basically you're going to end up with a fighter who can cast crappy spells. In that case, it'd be better to go kind of the route that Abjurant Champion did and give this class abilities that can be used by dropping spells to charge them (Arcane strike, etc.)

But that seems to cut against what you're doing with the whole ignore ASF thing. The simple truth is that a gish build can only give up so many caster levels before it gimps itself. I'd suggest dropping two caster levels maximum and possibly integrating more mechanics that favor self-buffs and attacks that can be channeled through their melee attacks.

[Goaty14]

I'm aiming to have the PrC run in and beat things with a sword, instead of being a spellcaster that traded one level of spellcasting for more hp and armor.

Yea, and to be reasonably good at running in and beating things with a sword, you need spellcasting. Especially if you're making it off of a gish base (since gishes live and die by their spells... a gish without spells may well be worse-off than a poorly build monk).

Or you drop spellcasting altogether (no CL prereqs, no CL progression, no caster-y stuff), and make a martial PrC that runs in and beats things with a sword, but that's clearly not your intention.

[ngilop]

I am most certainly in the minority of GiTP forum goers here.


But I think 'give it more spells' is the EXACT opposite of what needs to happen.


I think a class that gets a full base attack bonus should not get anywhere near 9th level spells let alone anything past 6th at 20th level.


But I also think one needs to give attractive class features. Bonus feats are not that attractive and spellf ailure reduction should just be at 1st 5th and 9th and each once give you 10%. fill in 3rd and 7th with a cool spell like ability Something like at 7th allow them to store a spell in his weapon. This functions as the spell storing weapon special ability. Maybe at 3rd allow the spellsword to give his weapon an elemental weapon enchantment for a number of minutes equal to twice class level that must be spent in 1 minute increments.


at 1st Id give them Fighter training: Spell sword levels stack with fighter levels in regards to meeting prerequisites for feats.


I am just against the solution to every issue in 3rd ed is to give them more spells. that is lazy and not actually helping the issue in my opinion.

[Aetis]

If we compare Fighter X vs Fighter 2/Wiz 4/Spellsword X, only difference in martial terms is that Spellsword is down 2 BAB and 2 feats. (1 feat if we assume UA martial wizard)

2 BAB is 4 damage per hit assuming 2 handed PA, 6 damage with Leap Attack - about 12 to 18 damage difference per round assuming 3 hits per round.

Avg combat encounter I run is about 3 rounds, so that's about 36 to 54 damage difference each encounter.

I am hoping that the spellsword's basic combat pattern is same as a martial character, but the difference is that spellsword has a spell loaded in his weapon.

So I guess the question is, how much wizard casting do you need in that loaded spell (and outside combat) to make up for 36 to 54 damage difference each encounter?

What if I gave spellswords different abilities instead to utilize their spells better? (their casting suffer from MAD and loss of CL, so maybe letting them use Str for spell DCs for channeled spells, and letting their CL equal their BAB, just like abj champ)

[ngilop]

If we compare Fighter X vs Fighter 2/Wiz 4/Spellsword X, only difference in martial terms is that Spellsword is down 2 BAB and 2 feats. (1 feat if we assume UA martial wizard)

2 BAB is 4 damage per hit assuming 2 handed PA, 6 damage with Leap Attack - about 12 to 18 damage difference per round assuming 3 hits per round.

Avg combat encounter I run is about 3 rounds, so that's about 36 to 54 damage difference each encounter.

I am hoping that the spellsword's basic combat pattern is same as a martial character, but the difference is that spellsword has a spell loaded in his weapon.

So I guess the question is, how much wizard casting do you need in that loaded spell (and outside combat) to make up for 36 to 54 damage difference each encounter?

What if I gave spellswords different abilities instead to utilize their spells better? (their casting suffer from MAD and loss of CL, so maybe letting them use Str for spell DCs for channeled spells, and letting their CL equal their BAB, just like abj champ)

You are thinking about this all wrong. who cares about damage per encounter. When the spellsword has other things they can do LIKE teleport, give himself stat increases, negate options that could take the base fighter out of the fighter completely. SPells do a WHOLE lore more than deal xd6s.


In the end just getting 5th level casting puts a character over and above anything a base fighter could ever dream of doing.

[Aetis]

Our table actually just runs bunch of combat when we play, and spellcasters have a gentlemen's agreement to use mostly damage-spells.

I think it's a good approximation, at least for my table.

[ngilop]

Our table actually just runs bunch of combat when we play, and spellcasters have a gentlemen's agreement to use mostly damage-spells.

I think it's a good approximation, at least for my table.

That changes things


If everybody at your table just plays Blastmage then really giving them full caster levels don't do much of anything. except let them hit the cap for damage dice earlier.

I was only talking when they did other things like use like dimension door. bull;s strength, protection from evil, freedom of movement, fear, glitterdust and the like.

[Aetis]

That changes things


If everybody at your table just plays Blastmage then really giving them full caster levels don't do much of anything. except let them hit the cap for damage dice earlier.

I was only talking when they did other things like use like dimension door. bull;s strength, protection from evil, freedom of movement, fear, glitterdust and the like.

Hmmmm...

Dimension door is multi-target, so I feel as it would be generally redundant to have it on both your frontliner and your party mage, although I agree there are some niche cases it would be useful.

Bull's Strength does not stack with magic items, and therefore it's only relevant at levels 3-5ish.

PoE is a 1st level spell the party cleric spams on a wand.

Freedom of Movement is not an arcane spell. I do agree Heart of Water on a spellsword would be very effective.

Fear and glitterdust's DC would be subpar on a Spellsword, since he is MAD and cannot pump his Int as high.

[Nifft]

If you want PCs to mix low-level spellcasting with melee combat, you need to do something to make spellcasting synergize better with melee combat.

Stuff like...

- At level 2, when you hit an enemy in melee, you can add your class level to all Spell Penetration checks against that creature for the duration of the encounter.

- At level 4, when you hit an enemy in melee, that enemy suffers a penalty to all saving throws vs. your spells equal to half your class level.

- At level 6, when you miss an enemy with a melee attack, you can spend a Swift action to dispel one illusion or abjuration effect on that enemy. Make a dispel check using your character level as the caster level. You can do this at will, all day long, but only once per turn.

[Aetis]

If you want PCs to mix low-level spellcasting with melee combat, you need to do something to make spellcasting synergize better with melee combat.

Stuff like...

- At level 2, when you hit an enemy in melee, you can add your class level to all Spell Penetration checks against that creature for the duration of the encounter.

- At level 4, when you hit an enemy in melee, that enemy suffers a penalty to all saving throws vs. your spells equal to half your class level.

- At level 6, when you miss an enemy with a melee attack, you can spend a Swift action to dispel one illusion or abjuration effect on that enemy. Make a dispel check using your character level as the caster level. You can do this at will, all day long, but only once per turn.

Yeah, that sounds closer to what I had in mind. I think some of the higher-casting gishes are covered in Abj Champion and EK anyhow.

I like your ability suggestions (except for the Spell Pen one, which I think is too similar to duskblade's).

[Nifft]

(... which I think is too similar to duskblade's).

I mean, the channeling spells and casting in armor is also similar to Duskblade.

This class was always in direct conflict with Duskblade, since they're doing the same sort of thing.

But your half-caster is going to suck so much worse than AbjCham or EK which lose significantly fewer caster levels -- and your class is going to smack into this hard, when you try to channel a spell into someone with SR.

So don't steal what you don't want to steal, but recognize that this class was already elbow-deep in Duskblade before you started touching it, and you haven't removed the major common features at all. That said, if you allow AbjCham and EK in the game, there's no reason to ever take more than 1 level of Spellblade, so it's not any worse than it was before you touched it.

[Aetis]

Understood. Always better to leave the meta intact than make it worse.

I'm perfectly fine with EK and AC remaining as top options over SS.

[Nifft]

Understood. Always better to leave the meta intact than make it worse.

I'm perfectly fine with EK and AC remaining as top options over SS.

Thinking about it a bit more, the Duskblade might be a specific refinement of the Spellsword mechanics.

Duskblade was relatively late-edition, while Spellsword was relatively early. They solved the major problems with half-caster+channeling -- giving full caster level, plus a bonus to reward melee, and the bonus stacks with (Greater) Spell Penetration.

The fact that both give lower-level spells, spell channeling, and casting in armor (which applies to progressively heavier armor as you level up) -- these similarities might not be coincidence.

Anyway, good gaming and hopefully you can derive some value from my rambling.

[Aetis]

Actually, you are right. I will give CL boost on the channels to match full CL progression.

AC and EK still outshine it, but I believe this is the step in the right direction.

[nonsi]

Actually, you are right. I will give CL boost on the channels to match full CL progression.

AC and EK still outshine it, but I believe this is the step in the right direction.

Note that for a class to have mechanical justifications to exist, it must be superior to all the other competitors in at least one aspect.
If class A is superior to class B in every possible way, then there's no reason to choose class B over class A - ever.