The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

W/out making a whole grid, I'll just list in bullets the changes. Mostly they come in the form of new PreReqs.

*+4 BAB requirement
*Caster Level lowered to 2nd level spells requirement
*Combat Casting, Arcane Strike, and Arcane Armor Training Feat requirements
*Spellcraft of 4 ranks requirement
*10th level capstone ability is changed as follows: character can store up to PrC spell...

I like those requirements better. Make getting into the PRC EK a lot more flexible with out directly affecting the balance.

I think the feat requirements are rather harsh and the class doesn't really do anything for them. I'd say make it combat casting and either arcane armor training or arcane strike. Beyond that it's okay.

W/out making a whole grid, I'll just list in bullets the changes. Mostly they come in the form of new PreReqs.

*+4 BAB requirement
*Caster Level lowered to 2nd level spells requirement
*Combat Casting, Arcane Strike, and Arcane Armor Training Feat requirements
*Spellcraft of 4 ranks requirement
*10th level capstone ability is changed as follows: character can store up to PrC spell...

Arcane Casting Feat needs caster level 3rd to take so dropping CL to 2nd is pointless.

I feel I should point out that EK as written is NOT a fighter who can cast. He is a caster who can fight.

Look at the requirements. 3rd level spells, but only 1 lvl of fighter (or other combat class) needed. Spellsword was a "fighter who casts". EK has been, and still is, a "caster who fights". That's why you only loose 2 spellcasting levels, compared to 3-4 for any other "combat casting" PrC, like Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, and Dragon Disciple.

What makes the EK not work as a gish class is the lack of actual COMBAT potential, not the spellcasting. If you think the EK fails on this, you are correct, but entirely missing the point of the PrC.

Dork Lord wrote:

Do you really want the best of both worlds? You continue advancing in whatever spellcasting class you were in before, and in addition you get d10 hit points and a full BaB. That's huge. If you're looking for a Fighter who can cast spells as well as an equal level Wizard, you may want to look into the old gestalt rules.

The -only- thing I'd change is giving the EK two good saves (Fort and Will).

I have NO idea what would be best ... I'm just noting the clear disparity in PrC design amongst casting-types.

Other PrC's may not be getting a full bab, but they sure are getting full caster status (mostly) and some SERIOUS class abilities ... but the EK gets nothing.

Even the 2 good saves would be a step in the right direction, honestly ... I'm less on the patch end than I am in looking to see if I'm the only one noting this discrepancy?

I mean .. dragon disciples not only get better saves and hd, they also fully add their PrC levels to the bloodline powers for powers gained ... that's WAY beyond diverse training (ie: only stacking to meet feat pre-req's - not adding to say weapon or armor training, etc).

I look at the PrC's and it's like the EK is an unwanted child .. I'm just trying to give it some love and attention to at least bring them in-line w/the other PrC's.

The end-result with the PrC is what this is designed around.

The end-result with the PrC is what this is designed around.

Balancing a class only around the end game is bad design, or MMO design.

I did bring up the Theurge -- it's REALLY powerful and not only a full casting class, but in 2 different classes! I didn't get into specifics, but yes - there's something there.

You've forgotten one pretty potent factor, IMO, in the Dragon Disciple: d12 HD.

Really, though, I think the point you made about flavor-abilities might just be what I'm looking at. You're utility may vary on things like a Loremaster, but the fact remains that these classes all get spells AND some "stuff" for flavor.

The EK is ... vanilla for lack of a better term. There's nothing there, and so it looks underpowered/valued by comparison. This is the root of my problem in observations and comparisons.

I definitely don't agree on the Dragon Disciple thing, though, str matters w/their natural attacks granted from the bloodline. Flight is powerful - at will, no limits ... don't care what you say otherwise. It matters. Free ability boosts ... what other class grants free ability boosts ... 4 times!?!??! And natural armor - as a permanent feature!?!?! No - this class is crazy powerful. If the sorcerer is getting out of combat most of the time (w/a d6 hd only) when he's just in his bloodline, if his spell selection is carefully crafted around making him a melee-fighter/enhancer/whatever ... the INSTANT he gets Dragon Disciple, his BAB increases to 2nd best, and his HD becomes THE best in the game period ... why wouldn't he craft himself towards becoming a crazy-front-line-magic-enhanced combat monstrosity? He's only trading off 3 levels at most in caster ... it's very, VERY powerful.

I mean, spells like bull's strength, cat's grace, and the like (not to mention the cha-booster for messing w/spell DC's) plus Enlarge Person, and displacement, haste, vampiric touch, stone skin, tenser's transformation, troll form, etc, etc, etc. This stuff will make the sorcerer super-bad-ass!!! Especially backed with d12 hd ...

Theurge isn't really that great until REALLY high levels and you ALWAYS feel the reduction in caster level that you suffer for doing it. Sorceror to Dragon Disciple isn't that effective either... it's better as a barb5/sorc1/DD whatever.

It seems like you haven't played any of these classes yet. It's easy to get sticker shock off Mystic Theurge of Dragon Disciple, but as you see them interact with the other game mechanics you realize that they're actually much more balanced then you might have thought.

Eldritch Knight is actually quite powerful, in my opinion one of the most powerful PrC's in the core book. People always talk about dead levels when referring to mages, but they really don't have any. Every odd caster level they gain access to a new level of spell, and their caster level scales up raising the efficiency and often power of all thier existing spells. Now you're not only casting, but you can snag fighter ony bonus feats and trade blows on the front lines... It's actually quite a good deal for the PrC.

Arcane Casting Feat needs caster level 3rd to take so dropping CL to 2nd is pointless.

Also why wouldn't every Wizard take this? Okay his familiar would take a hit and he would lose his cap-stone but getting 10 levels of full BAB, d10 hps per level, the EK bonus feats and Critical Spell makes up for it.

Caster level is not = to "spell level" :-p

Sure, theurge *might* have a tough time ... early going. But even on the spell levels lost of the upper tier, the sheer volume accessible, not to mention the ability to double-up and add capacity to highest level spell-slots (or simply favorite spell slots) by cross-memorization is insane!!! It blows the Sorcerer right out of the water ...

Oooo - can't cast8th or 9th level spells like the pure-classer ... BUT having 3-4x the casting capacity of the pure casters ... freakin' hell yeah!!!

Plus it's a full wizard-type that can heal, buff like crazy and/or channel as well. It's a potent PrC even for what is given up.

As for the early on, they're getting better hd and bab than a pure wizard (less than cleric, though), higher overall will save, too. :shrugs:

There is a lot of power in that class even if the upper tier spells are not easily accessible.

I think the feat requirements are rather harsh and the class doesn't really do anything for them. I'd say make it combat casting and either arcane armor training or arcane strike. Beyond that it's okay.

They are intentionally harsh - as it stands I feel it's a bit too powerful.

As for what is gained? Umm ... nothing on the armored casting, but they probably will be/should be making use of armor and casting (especially since armor is better than Mage Armor and can be enchanted). That said, they could use one of the bonus feats to pick up the next level of arcane armor training to push into medium armor as well as light. :shrugs: This is going back to the sort of "blank slate" design of the PrC. It will be what the player decides it will be.

Arcane Strike - this gets better for each +1 caster level as that determines the AS bonus granted, so yeah ... it does help. Additionally, since the level 10 thing I changed to a triggered, free action from a stored location (weapon), the PrC can now use the swift action to Arcane strike w/the weapon, hit, and auto-cast one of the stored spells ... all at the same time. Pretty potent, imo.

Combat Casting is self explanatory, though.

Others have touched on this... but I personally don't feel that you can directly compare two PrCs as being equal, without looking at how complicated their requirements are (and I don't just mean min # of levels before you can take them), and how specialized they are.

The EK has only two requirements, martial weapons, and 3rd level spells. Any full BAB class qualifies for 1, any arcane caster qualifies for the other. Given the wide and varied combinations able to access the class, it loses a lot of flavor. It has be generic enough to cover something as stereotypical as the generic Fighter-Mage, as rare as the Skald (Barb/Bard), or anything in between. This cuts down on how many "fluff" abilities can be tossed in.

Compare this two the DD, which only has 2 ways in (Sorc and Bard), and is clearly designed specifically for one of them. Because of this, the class can be very specific to those entry paths. Designers know what kind of class features people will want, because of the limited audience.

TL:DNR version... with specialization comes customization; the wider the audience, the more generic the flavor.

Eldrich Knight works as Warrior-Mage combo.

If you disagree with that, crunch the numbers and provide some actual evidence as to why it doesn't work.

I have. Many times. Eldritch knights are completely incapable in melee, and always better off just skipping the buff-and-go-into-melee and using their spells at range like a wizard. They completely fail to be warrior/mages.

When the situation changes where those strategies become moot than you have your versatility to fall back on, which only divine spellcasters(druids and clerics) can brag about having.

No, you don't have versatility, because if you wade into melee against level-appropriate foes you still die like a chump.

I played an EK through 15 levels in 3.5. Sucked. Bad. Real bad.

Pathfinder fixed almost all of the problems through feats, D10 hd, and access to the higher level fighter only feats. Throw in all of the new polymorh spells, and there seem to be great options.

MiB- If you could share your numbers I would be very interested. I have been stating up melee bards, and I'm impressed with what I came up with. (not amazed, but impressed.) I can't imagine how an EK could be that much worse. How can you go wrong with a full Power Attack Vital strike, wearing celestial full plate after casting Giantform I (troll) and Improved Invisibility?

On a side note, I think EK might be disappointing if you are the only arcane caster in the group, or the only fighter type. If you are trying to play the blaster/utility/self buff mage who also has to be the punching bag - yeah that is not going to work out well.

MiB- If you could share your numbers I would be very interested. I have been stating up melee bards, and I'm impressed with what I came up with. (not amazed, but impressed.) I can't imagine how an EK could be that much worse. How can you go wrong with a full Power Attack Vital strike, wearing celestial full plate after casting Giantform I (troll) and Improved Invisibility?

Because you didn't cast Reverse Gravity or Stone to Flesh or Circle of Death and just win the fight with one spell. A full PA/VS attack is going to do something like 75 damage on a very, very, VERY good day and nothing at level 15+ is going to die quickly to that.

The PF EK is better than the 3.5 EK, but that doesn't make it good.

Because you didn't cast Reverse Gravity or Stone to Flesh or Circle of Death and just win the fight with one spell. A full PA/VS attack is going to do something like 75 damage on a very, very, VERY good day and nothing at level 15+ is going to die quickly to that.

One hit, one kill isn't a reasonable standard for a level-appropriate challenge, which is highlighted by the fact that none of the three spells you listed will necessarily achieve that goal. Circle of death and stone to flesh are pretty much all or nothing. Reverse gravity could dish out some damage, but a saving throw is still possible, and maximum falling damage averages less than the 75 points of damage that you complain about.

I think several things in all of the "EKs Suck" threads have become apparent:

1. "Suck" or "not suck" are based on little more than preference.

2. Some folks don't seem to have a grasp on what constitutes an appropriate encounter at any level, let alone high levels.

3. Too many of the EK's detractors are really just making stuff up as they go along in order to support their a priori conclusion.

Because you didn't cast Reverse Gravity or Stone to Flesh or Circle of Death and just win the fight with one spell. A full PA/VS attack is going to do something like 75 damage on a very, very, VERY good day and nothing at level 15+ is going to die quickly to that.

The PF EK is better than the 3.5 EK, but that doesn't make it good.

Circle of Death? No creatures over 9HD.

If your standard is ending a fight in round 1, I guess wizard is really the only choice, but I'm under the impression that most folks don't really enjoy playing that way. Yes, a straight wizard is more powerful. But I don't think a Pathfinder EK is irrelevant the way they were in 3.5. I mean, is 75 damage a round really that bad when you can cast Limited Wish the next round?

Edit - Not trying to be snarky towards you MiB. I don't want my post to come off as adversarial or rude, but my internet speak is lacking.

PS I'm really lazy. If you could share your numbers, that would save me some crunching.

One hit, one kill isn't a reasonable standard for a level-appropriate challenge, which is highlighted by the fact that none of the three spells you listed will necessarily achieve that goal. Circle of death and stone to flesh are pretty much all or nothing. Reverse gravity could dish out some damage, but a saving throw is still possible, and maximum falling damage averages less than the 75 points of damage that you complain about.

Reverse Gravity is no-save helplessness for anything that can't fly. But that's beside-the-point quibbling.

The sort of damage an EK is going to do at level 15 (which is the minimum to cast Giantform I), even with the help of Giantform I, isn't a threat to CR 15 foes. It's barely a threat to CR 11 foes.

2. Some folks don't seem to have a grasp on what constitutes an appropriate encounter at any level, let alone high levels.

At what level, and against what opposition, is an EK a threat to level-appropriate foes in melee? Do tell.

I mean, is 75 damage a round really that bad when you can cast Limited Wish the next round?

YES. You're better off not self-buffing to try and reach for the stars and just casting stupid Limited Wish in the first place.

I pulled 75 damage more or less out of my butt. Being generous, on a level 15 character (ftr1/wiz5/EK9) with 25-ish str (which means a high starting str AND a str-boosting item), improved vital strike, power attack, and both WF and GWF:

To hit: 12 BAB +7 str +3 magic weapon +2-ish feats -4 power attack -1 size
Damage: 3d6 + 6d6 IVS + 3d6 shocking/holy + 10 str + 12 PA +2 WS

Without doing the math on crits but using Improved Vital Strike, that's +19 to hit and 66 damage on a hit. Eyeballing things, I suspect that crits add about 7 damage per hit on average with Improved Critical. So that puts me at 73. (Woo, go estimation!)

So this EK has blown a top-level spell to...lose melee horribly to a CR 15 neothelid, and possibly split fights with a CR 11 cloud giant.

...why did he spend all that money and all those feats and a top level spell on entering melee again?

Mark Chance wrote:

One hit, one kill isn't a reasonable standard for a level-appropriate challenge, which is highlighted by the fact that none of the three spells you listed will necessarily achieve that goal. Circle of death and stone to flesh are pretty much all or nothing. Reverse gravity could dish out some damage, but a saving throw is still possible, and maximum falling damage averages less than the 75 points of damage that you complain about.

Reverse Gravity is no-save helplessness for anything that can't fly.

But the sort of damage an EK is going to do at level 15 (which is the minimum to cast Giantform I), even with the help of Giantform I, isn't a threat to CR 15 foes. It's barely a threat to CR 11 foes.

Quote:

2. Some folks don't seem to have a grasp on what constitutes an appropriate encounter at any level, let alone high levels.

At what level, and against what opposition, is an EK a threat to level-appropriate foes in melee? Do tell.

Fergie wrote:

I mean, is 75 damage a round really that bad when you can cast Limited Wish the next round?

YES. You're better off not self-buffing to try and reach for the stars and just casting stupid Limited Wish in the first place.

75 damage isnt too bad actually especially if you have the party rogue flanking ready to get that sneak attack off to finish off an opponent.

The school of thought that nothing is worth losing a caster level over will never like the classes like this. But this class only loses 2 caster levels over their career, and trade it off for 1 hp / level, some fighter feats, full attack bonuses, and a better value for the most important save (Fort). Once spells get over 3rd level it becomes overkill for most anyway; and why not be able to stop grapple / anti-magic fields? When battle of Black Tentacles occurs, I'd much rather have more BAB to work off. And if your party is pushing on, it's great to pull out a bow and deal fighter-like damage with it (again, I prefer the archer eldrich knight). Also, rays like Enervation etc hit much more often with straight BAB, and weapon focus/specialization Ray is perfectly legal.

For these reasons, I think the Eldrich Knight is as good as, if not better, than the Mage counterpart. But you can never convince the school of never-lose-a-caster-level.

The school of thought that nothing is worth losing a caster level over will never like the classes like this. But this class only loses 2 caster levels over their career, and trade it off for 1 hp / level, some fighter feats, full attack bonuses, and a better value for the most important save (Fort). Once spells get over 3rd level it becomes overkill for most anyway; and why not be able to stop grapple / anti-magic fields? When battle of Black Tentacles occurs, I'd much rather have more BAB to work off. And if your party is pushing on, it's great to pull out a bow and deal fighter-like damage with it (again, I prefer the archer eldrich knight). Also, rays like Enervation etc hit much more often with straight BAB, and weapon focus/specialization Ray is perfectly legal.

For these reasons, I think the Eldrich Knight is as good as, if not better, than the Mage counterpart. But you can never convince the school of never-lose-a-caster-level.

And thus we have the endless haranguing over the same old topics without really getting anywhere or anything productive done.

Once spells get over 3rd level it becomes overkill for most anyway; and why not be able to stop grapple / anti-magic fields? When battle of Black Tentacles occurs, I'd much rather have more BAB to work off.

Defensive Maneuver Training (or whatever the hell it's called). One feat, doesn't ruin your caster level. And EKs just die horribly in antimagic fields, just like all characters.

The reason you can never convince the school of "never-lose-a-caster-level" is because the EK doesn't give anything but some weak defensive abilities. Perhaps if prestige classes gave away abilities that were as good as a caster level, there wouldn't need to be any "never-lose-a-caster-level" school to teach new players to avoid traps.

Reverse Gravity is no-save helplessness for anything that can't fly.

No, it isn't, and if you weren't just making stuff up as you go along, you'd know that.

The sort of damage an EK is going to do at level 15 (which is the minimum to cast Giantform I), even with the help of Giantform I, isn't a threat to CR 15 foes.

As I said, some folks don't seem to have a grasp on what constitutes an appropriate encounter at any level, let alone high levels.

An appropriate challenge for a level 15 party isn't a CR 15 foe; it's an APL 15 encounter. Given the problem associated with action deficit faced by solo foes, anyone with experience in 3.5/PF encounter building would realize that a good APL 15 encounter is unlikely to be a single CR 15 creature.

I pulled 75 damage more or less out of my butt.

That does seem to your modus operandi. It certainly relieves you of the burden of reasoned demonstration and fact-checking.

Ehem, if I may say something?

EVERYONE SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, CALM DOWN, STAND UP, AND START TALKING LIKE YOU ALL DON'T HAVE BARBARIAN LEVELS!

*cough*

Apologies if I have offended anyone, but it needed to be said, and making it bold and bigger seemed necessary to get the point across.

I think we're being civil. It's also on subject; the first question was: is the Eldrich Knight weak? Even the poster agrees it is not, I believe Fort save, straight BAB, and fighter feats can be equal to or better than 2 caster levels; MiB disagrees. Original poster suggested a variant whose power resolves around the Swordmage of 3.5, with less Mage levels to get in if you 50/50 split. While an OK idea, nobody really commented; the true core of the matter has been solved, as the general consensus is Eldrich Knight is good, but most of us don't like house-ruled prestige classes and that would be a different thread. Finally, an excellent post was put up to the Iron Mage, a fantastically built but poorly named base class.

Where do you feel the thread has lost purpose? Strictly speaking this whole forum is for those of us who have too much time on our hands to debate the merits and flaws of messing with aspects of our favorite game :). Arguments will and should happen.

Keeping on subject, it's an interesting aspect, the Treatmonk view. Logic has dictated for some time that specialists are the better part of DND, and many times that is true. But in this case, two levels of spell progression doesn't equal a "bad thing"; the diversity of abilities is excellent. Even in mid-to-high campaigns, having a bow to "fall back on" when you don't want to waste magic is quite powerful; especially if the party needs to push on. Straight BAB complements the Ray spells, again Enfeeblement (and despite what Treat says dishing hard damage with scorching rays can be quite handy, especially if you have precise/ point blank). It has a lot of uses; it's worse for the straight control, probably better for partial controllers / blaster masters. I will agree it's not the songblade everyone wants back though.

Given the problem associated with action deficit faced by solo foes, anyone with experience in 3.5/PF encounter building would realize that a good APL 15 encounter is unlikely to be a single CR 15 creature.

Okay? It's still not a threat to a cloud giant, and four cloud giants is an APL encounter.

That does seem to your modus operandi. It certainly relieves you of the burden of reasoned demonstration and fact-checking.

Yet, when I fact-checked it, that estimate was within 2 damage. WTF, dude, I'm happy to fess up when I'm wrong, but I wasn't.

What's with this dishonest nonsense where you quote one part of my post, then ignore the rest that already refutes your claims? Reread all of this post.

What's with this dishonest nonsense where you quote one part of my post, then ignore the rest that already refutes your claims?

You didn't refute. You contradicted. There is a difference. You yourself admitted to just making stuff up. You were also factually incorrect regarding saving throws and reverse gravity.

You also claim you've "crunched the numbers" and still have to offer any actual evidence of doing so, which only further reinforces the impression you're just making stuff up.

But, you know what? Whatever. None of it matters, and since you equate "not first string" with "sucks", it also seems apparent that nothing less than everyone just agreeing with your undemonstrated assertions would be unacceptable.

Au revoir. I've got better things to do.

A Man In Black wrote:

Reverse Gravity is no-save helplessness for anything that can't fly.

No, it isn't, and if you weren't just making stuff up as you go along, you'd know that.

Unless you rule they can drive their sword into the ground to 'secure a hold' then yes, it has no save in a flat 15" area.

The reason you can never convince the school of "never-lose-a-caster-level" is because the EK doesn't give anything but some weak defensive abilities.

Wait what? Do you mean the spells? Those ones that have served wizards and sorcerors reliably since ever. Or do you mean those feats? That im not going to use defensively because I have spells?

I think the major flaw in the EK's suck as warriors argument is that they all seem to assume that im going around in full plate wielding sword and board and wearing fullplate. They never really account for what wizard spells actually give nor do they try to wrap their minds around the idea that an EK is not going to be doing the same things that wizards or fighters are going to do. The example you gave is actually one of the weakest versions of the class. Heck, considering the sheer awesomeness of skirmish strategies my favorite EK im playing around with right now flies around invisibly dive bombing people with spring attack and cleave or vital strike. And you know what? I can keep attacking people over and over again while save-or-lose spells keep messing up. I don't need armor, heck, i dont need a weapon. All I need is wall of stone, spring attack, and elemental body3 to relentlessly punch people through walls, and the best part, the absolutely best part, is that I have the Bab, ability scores, and hit points to back it up.

Their are huge giudes, HUGE guides for gishes in the old CharOP forums for 3.5. Almost all of them include a level or two of EK because its easy to get into and still provides caster levels while simultaneously giving that precious +1 bab.

It should be said the best offensive spell the wizard has is not those save-or-lose spells. It's the party's fighter. You buff him, control the bad guys, and win the day in a lot more guaranteed ways than casting reverse gravity on that teleporting, flying neothelid.

And before we bring in the Anti-magic field argument I'd like to remind everyone of this.

And EKs just die horribly in antimagic fields, just like all characters.

So there. Everyone sucks in an anti-magic field.

In conclusion the idea behind the EK is not to be a mage or a fighter, but to be an EK. Analyze the fight, apply the appropriate force, and conquer. Some fights you need to stay back and let the dedicated fighters die for you. Others, you need to run in and lend a hand. And still others you sit back and play reserve until the fighter runs out to heal or get abck or until some incredibly smarmy baddy decides to "rush the wizard". Some fights you'll have to empty your entire reservoir of spells. Others, you can run up and beat up someone with little more than the buffs you cast several minutes earlier.

Wait what? Do you mean the spells? Those ones that have served wizards and sorcerors reliably since ever. Or do you mean those feats? That im not going to use defensively because I have spells?

I think the major flaw in the EK's suck as warriors argument is that they all seem to assume that im going around in full plate wielding sword and board and wearing fullplate. They never really account for what wizard spells actually give nor do they try to wrap their minds around the idea that an EK is not going to be doing the same things that wizards or fighters are going to do. The example you gave is actually one of the weakest versions of the class. Heck, considering the sheer awesomeness of skirmish strategies my favorite EK im playing around with right now flies around invisibly dive bombing people with spring attack and cleave or vital strike.

I mean the HP, the fort save, and the armor proficiencies. The feats and the on-crit effect don't turn you into anything like a capable melee combatant. You can "invisibly dive-bomb people" but you'd probably be better off just dropping invisibility on someone who was at least as melee-capable as a bard than standing back and using low-level spells to control the battlefield. And that's still true even if you take EK levels.

Their are huge giudes, HUGE guides for gishes in the old CharOP forums for 3.5. Almost all of them include a level or two of EK because its easy to get into and still provides caster levels while simultaneously giving that precious +1 bab.

And almost all of them were built around more-powerful PrCs or somehow cheated on losing a caster level. And +1 BAB isn't that precious if you spend most of your life on casting; it's highly overrated.

In conclusion the idea behind the EK is not to be a mage or a fighter, but to be an EK.

And what does an EK do that neither class can do better? "Be both a bad mage and a bad warrior" is not a sufficient answer.

There's the assumption that resorting to melee is somehow a useful situational ability. The problem is that you can't resort to melee effectively, and even if you could, melee is not a situationally-useful ability; nothing is weak to melee attacks by design.

You also claim you've "crunched the numbers" and still have to offer any actual evidence of doing so, which only further reinforces the impression you're just making stuff up.

Dude, I sat down and did the math on what a level 15 EK can do for melee damage, and it was within 2 damage of my rough-eyeball estimate. Here it is again if you need.

Being generous, on a level 15 character (ftr1/wiz5/EK9) with 25-ish str (which means a high starting str AND a str-boosting item), improved vital strike, power attack, and both WF and GWF:

To hit: 12 BAB +7 str +3 magic weapon +2-ish feats -4 power attack -1 size
Damage: 3d6 + 6d6 IVS + 3d6 shocking/holy + 10 str + 12 PA +2 WS

Without doing the math on crits but using Improved Vital Strike, that's +19 to hit and 66 damage on a hit. Crits add roughly 7 damage (20% extra on 36-ish damage) per hit. So that puts me at 73. (Woo, go estimation!)

Do you need me to sit down and show you why that's not enough damage to allow it to win a fistfight with a cloud giant, let alone a neothelid? I can, but I sort of figured you could do arithmetic.

Now, you're asserting that an EK has some ability to be effective in melee at some unspecified level against some unspecified level-appropriate opponent. Show your work.

Mark Chance wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Reverse Gravity is no-save helplessness for anything that can't fly.

No, it isn't, and if you weren't just making stuff up as you go along, you'd know that.

Unless you rule they can drive their sword into the ground to 'secure a hold' then yes, it has no save in a flat 15" area.

This is true, I'd argue that it's a spell i'd rarely use because by that point most things can either deal with it or you have better things you can be doing. It assumes im going to be fighting people at that level who can't deal with it, or not indoors, or have a way to deal with said characters. It can be a good delaying tactic, but it doesn't stop rival spellcasters (in fact you probably just threw them out of reach of your melee fighters) or ranged characters.

Stone to flesh isn't any better. Many things have good fort saves and SR, it also only targets one critter.

Circle of Death is just plain lousy. Requires a save, affects a very limited number of creatures, and has spell resistance oh and it costs 500gp everytime i cast it. That's 4 strikes on an all or nothing spell slot I could've used on a Mass Suggestion instead if i really wanted to make people lose. Though more likely I'm going to use it to toss out a summon monster VI.

I think better examples are in order if you want to add weight to your argument. Just keep in mind that if a wizard can do it, so can the EK. Even if it takes a level or two to get there.

I think better examples are in order if you want to add weight to your argument. Just keep in mind that if a wizard can do it, so can the EK. Even if it takes a level or two to get there.

All of them are weak. All of them are more effective and more reliable at disabling foes at level 15 than doing 73 damage per round, at significant cost in gear and stats.

Hey Speaker... how about a Shout out for the guy that gave you the idea for the new capstone and new requirements eh? Not like you came to those conclusions on your own.

I mean the HP, the fort save, and the armor proficiencies. The feats and the on-crit effect don't turn you into anything like a capable melee combatant. You can "invisibly dive-bomb people" but you'd probably be better off just dropping invisibility on someone who was at least as melee-capable as a bard than standing back and using low-level spells to control the battlefield. And that's still true even if you take EK levels.

Probably, probably. But I'm more melee capable than the bard by myself and I don't have to convince him to stay in range of my spells, and I can't buff him in all the ways i can buff myself nor has he made the investments into being what I am, like I have.

And almost all of them were built around more-powerful PrCs or somehow cheated on losing a caster level.

True. They still used it though and these are the same insane people who gave us Pun-Pun.

And what does an EK do that neither class can do better? "Be both a bad mage and a bad warrior" is not a sufficient answer.

Be a good EK. And yes that is a sufficient answer, because you're trying to shoehorn it into one or the other without taking the big picture. Heck, with that argument I can sit here and rag on the bard for being a bad sorceror and rogue, but we both know that would be pointless, because a bard is a bard it does bard things. An EK is an EK it does EK things. It doesn't do fighter things, it doesn't have fighter abilities, it just borrows some. It doesn't do wizard abilities it just steals his spellbook.

But, hey let's play along here for a second. Their are times where its better to be a bad wizard and a bad fighter, than a good fighter or good wizard when you're in an encounter where one or the other is completely useless.

15th level Elven Eldrich Knight - 20 point buy

Figter 1 / Wiz 5 / EK 9
Str: 14
Int: 16 (stat item to 20)
Wis: 7
Dex: 22 (stat item to 26... 3 level bumps)
Con: 12
Chr: 7

BAB: +12 (compared with a Wizards +7)
AC: +4 Mithril Chain Shirt, AC: 26 (with no buffs); can buff pretty much as well as a wizard.

HP: exactly 11 more on average than a wizard of the same level.

Has amongst his feats Deadly Shot, Precise Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Weapon Focus: Composite Bow, Point Blank Shot, Arcane Armor Proficiency and Greater, Multi-Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, Improved Precise Shot, Weapon Specialization

So general shooting (+1 14-strength Frost Shocking Flaming Bow, which he enchants at the beginning of each day to be +3 for the majority of the day):

+20 / + 20 / +15 / +10 (-5 for Rapid and Deadly Aim, +1 PBS). Ignores cover etc.
Damage per shot: 4.5 (Base) + 3 + 10.5 (Elements) + 6 (Deadly Aim) + 3 (Arcane Shot) + 2 (Strength) + 1 (PBS) = 32 average per shot, 128 potential. This is all pre-haste, basically buffed with GMW, that's it.

Now, that's not amazing, but it's certainly good (I left out holy for simplicty here). And we haven't exactly decked out his magic items. He can do this as many times as he wants, he can benefit from haste and get yet another shot. His fortitude save is better, 11 extra hp; slightly worse will save. And did I mention relative to the party's "controlish" wizard, he casts spells at the same level (trait) and has only lost 2 levels (and probably a +2 init trait)? And he can hit with rays without trying; compared with the wizard who is effectively -6 worse to hit with them (more if the wiz isn't as focused in Dex)

He still has a full compliment of control spells etc; but he can conserve them and go "blaster master" if the combat seems to be going reasonably well. His int is about 4 under a wiz, so he keeps a focused list of spells, prefering ones that don't allow saves (either rays like Enfeeblement or Eneveration or Walls to cut off opponents. If he has prep he'll drop a summon or two and buff the party). Again, primary role mage, but when he pulls the bow he is keeping up with all but the most focused fighters.

Again, I feel this is better than the 15th level mage; who cares they don't have 8th level spells at this point. I would take this on a campaign over a standard mage any day.

But, you know what? Whatever. None of it matters, and since you equate "not first string" with "sucks"

This isn't professional football where you have a 53-man roster full of very good players, but can only field 11 of them. In a game designed for ~4 "first string" spot, "not first string" DOES equal suck.

it also seems apparent that nothing less than everyone just agreeing with your undemonstrated assertions would be unacceptable.

Au revoir. I've got better things to do.

You do realize you are criticizing one of a handful of posters on this board who actually does do his math, and quite often shows it, right? I know the "optimizer crowd" doesn't usually espouse the most popular views on the board, but for the most part they can't be knocked on their math.

Now fanboys who foam at the mouth anytime someone dare criticize any aspect of Paizo's Pathfinder design, and simply claim that everything is fine and nothing ever need be changed, on the other hand...well, the post above mine is the first I have seen attempting to prove that the EK is on par, and it doesn't do a very good job convincing me. (To clarify, I am a fan of Paizo and Pathfinder myself, I just tend to look at such systems with a more critical eye, in the hopes that something I enjoy can be made even better if I point out the flaws that I see.)

True. They still used it though and these are the same insane people who gave us Pun-Pun.

Let's not be silly now, and forget to differentiate between theoretical and practical optimization. Also, WotC gave us Pun-Pun, by pumping out unbalanced and untested material as if there were no tomorrow.

EK is doing just fine across all levels when compared to single-classes, at least none that I can recall.

I think this is more of a flaw regarding prc's in general. Not just the EK. Of the PRC's it can't be denied that EK is one of the better ones.

I won't sit here and scream across the country how EK is "superior" to both fighters and mages because its a fighter/mage. Because it's not. And I'm glad for that.

In the end all the "first stringer" classes in the world are no match for clever players. CharOP is fun but I do it with the understanding that one of my players just made a lich cry at lvl5 by giving her a hug, and she despised him.

Let's not be silly now, and forget to differentiate between theoretical and practical optimization. Also, WotC gave us Pun-Pun, by pumping out unbalanced and untested material as if there were no tomorrow.

All optimization is inherently theoretical. It deals in "estimates" and "averages" and random factors and makes a good show of removing them. In practice there are too many random factors to make optimization anything but.

But you're right it's silly.

EDIT*: It just struck me that EK might end up being one of the better PRCs with time after all. It depends on what gets released in the future. More ray spells, more touch spells, bloodline feats, more wizard and spellcaster feats, more fighter only feats.

To give an analogy the EK right now is grape juice. It's flavorful but if you spill it it stains the carpet and not everyone likes grape juice. With time it will either ferment into good wine or spoil into vinegar. The same can be said of most classes really. Fighters and wizards particularly.

Be a good EK. And yes that is a sufficient answer, because you're trying to shoehorn it into one or the other without taking the big picture. Heck, with that argument I can sit here and rag on the bard for being a bad sorceror and rogue, but we both know that would be pointless, because a bard is a bard it does bard things. An EK is an EK it does EK things.

The Bard class gets a lot of really nice bard things. The EK gets exactly two EK things, both of which are questionable mechanically, and one of which is marginally useful.

"Being an EK" is not "doing EK things" because there are no EK things except for using your EK levels to qualify for Fighter and Mage things. Until you get to the capstone anyway.

All optimization is inherently theoretical. It deals in "estimates" and "averages" and random factors and makes a good show of removing them. In practice there are too many random factors to make optimization anything but.

Not even close. The only things that can't be accounted for with the math are DM Fiat and Roleplaying. All other random factors come down to dice rolls which can most assuredly be accounted for with the math. Do not insult the math, for the math shall smite thee.

Not even close. The only things that can't be accounted for with the math are DM Fiat and Roleplaying. All other random factors come down to dice rolls which can most assuredly be accounted for with the math. Do not insult the math, for the math shall smite thee.

The math tends to assume that everything is being done right by everyone everywhere it's only smitey when I'm playing against a computer, which I'm not. But that's irrelevant to this topic so I'll stop now.

The Bard class gets a lot of really nice bard things. The EK gets exactly two EK things, both of which are questionable mechanically, and one of which is marginally useful.

"Being an EK" is not "doing EK things" because there are no EK things except for using your EK levels to qualify for Fighter and Mage things. Until you get to the capstone anyway.

It's a matter of perspective really and why you took the class to begin with. The class itself isn't filled wiht bells and whistels like, say, the Arcane Archer, but a class doesn't need bells and whistles to be good, it just needs to have a solid base. As a foundation, the EK is rather solid and takes some thought outside the typical mage or fighter thinking to really grasp.

The EK thing that it does is increase the utility of spells and feats you would otherwise never consider before messing around with the class and I'm not talking about Arcane Armor Training. It's not "uber" but than no class by itself is ever "uber".

Hey Speaker... how about a Shout out for the guy that gave you the idea for the new capstone and new requirements eh? Not like you came to those conclusions on your own.

Niko? lol! I didn't know you're name here and I did say "a friend" but I figured a reference to some yahoo's ID off-site would not be relevant.

However, take a bow!

Now, that's not amazing, but it's certainly good (I left out holy for simplicty here). And we haven't exactly decked out his magic items.

His practical DPR against your typical CR 15 is approximately 45 damage per round, and that's with me multiplying the frost/shocking/fiery damage with crits (so it's a bit lower). Magic items will bring that up a bit, but not a lot. That's four and a half turns to kill a CR 15 foe. That's like hitting a troll for 14 damage per round or hitting a gnoll for 2.5 damage per round.

It's just not a lot of damage.

Spacelard wrote:

Arcane Casting Feat needs caster level 3rd to take so dropping CL to 2nd is pointless.

Also why wouldn't every Wizard take this? Okay his familiar would take a hit and he would lose his cap-stone but getting 10 levels of full BAB, d10 hps per level, the EK bonus feats and Critical Spell makes up for it.

Caster level is not = to "spell level" :-p

Sure, theurge *might* have a tough time ... early going. But even on the spell levels lost of the upper tier, the sheer volume accessible, not to mention the ability to double-up and add capacity to highest level spell-slots (or simply favorite spell slots) by cross-memorization is insane!!! It blows the Sorcerer right out of the water ...

Oooo - can't cast8th or 9th level spells like the pure-classer ... BUT having 3-4x the casting capacity of the pure casters ... freakin' hell yeah!!!

Plus it's a full wizard-type that can heal, buff like crazy and/or channel as well. It's a potent PrC even for what is given up.

As for the early on, they're getting better hd and bab than a pure wizard (less than cleric, though), higher overall will save, too. :shrugs:

There is a lot of power in that class even if the upper tier spells are not easily accessible.

Yea, confused when Caster Level gets mentioned in the same sentence as Spell Level.

But dumping the Martial Weapons prereq means that a spellcaster can take this PrC without multiclassing. Okay he burns feats to get there but gets full BAB, bonus feats, etc. at the cost of missing one jump in Arcane Spellcasting.
Again why wouldn't every spellcaster enter the class? Apart from losing the Wizard Cap (wich is being replaced so trading one for another) and feat burn?

The math tends to assume that everything is being done right by everyone everywhere it's only smitey when I'm playing against a computer, which I'm not. But that's irrelevant to this topic so I'll stop now.

Wrong. Sadly, as much as you would like to pretend math is irrelevant, it's not. A bunch of people who were sick growing up, put out a large number of rules based on observation and thus that govern the lives. So unless you are playing D&D without dice, the math is always there and always wins.

It's a matter of perspective really and why you took the class to begin with.

Who takes Eldritch Knight?

The class itself isn't filled wiht bells and whistels like, say, the Arcane Archer, but a class doesn't need bells and whistles to be good,

No, it needs the ability to compete to be good. Said "bells and whistles" contribute significantly to the classes capabilities. It is because of the "bells and whistles" that the Bard is not a "bad sorcerer and bad rogue." The bells and whistles make it a Bard. The Eldritch Knight wasn't a particularly good choice when the Fighter was junk. It really isn't a good choice now. Paizo didn't really do much of anything to fix what's wrong with the core PrCs, especially the Eldritch Knight which makes it markedly worse than it even was in basic 3.5.

As a foundation, the EK is rather solid and takes some thought outside the typical mage or fighter thinking to really grasp.

Why, exactly? With the increase in HD size and the addition of armor training, who needs EK? I'll just be a Transmutation specialist Wizard.

15th level Elven Eldrich Knight - 20 point buy

Figter 1 / Wiz 5 / EK 9
Str: 14
Int: 16 (stat item to 20)
Wis: 7
Dex: 22 (stat item to 26... 3 level bumps)
Con: 12
Chr: 7

Since it wasn't mentioned and this build is going to be mocked saying it's underpowered... This doesn't include haste which is an easy enough thing to cast every fight (and someone needs to do it) which adds 1 attack and +1 to hit. This also doesn't include the heroism or greater heroism buff, which would add +2 or +4 to hit. For powergaming sake, we'll say greater heroism. That is +5 with haste in total to attack, which would make it:

+25/+25/+25/+20/+15 and the first attack has two arrows.

Against your average CR 15 that's going to be much more damage, enough to down it in a few rounds. Also remember, this character flies and has greater invisibility (which might add another +2 to attack and deny the opponent their dex bonus to AC). It isn't as optimized as a full fighter for damage, but it has great potential to buff itself and party members, and to be able to cast or attack when needed.

Thalin wrote:

Now, that's not amazing, but it's certainly good (I left out holy for simplicty here). And we haven't exactly decked out his magic items.

His practical DPR against your typical CR 15 is approximately 45 damage per round, and that's with me multiplying the frost/shocking/fiery damage with crits (so it's a bit lower). Magic items will bring that up a bit, but not a lot. That's four and a half turns to kill a CR 15 foe. That's like hitting a troll for 14 damage per round or hitting a gnoll for 2.5 damage per round.

It's just not a lot of damage.

For the most part, this game is a GROUP game. Every class should not be weighed on their ability to solo creatures of their same CR. All that math and DPS jargon don't take into account a player's tactical ability or ingenuity, just two brainless, computer controlled robots attacking each other toe to toe. This class was play-tested by REAL people for a year, not ran through tons of computer sims.

Yea, confused when Caster Level gets mentioned in the same sentence as Spell Level.

So Spell Level 3rd drops to Spell Level 2nd.

But dumping the Martial Weapons prereq means that a spellcaster can take this PrC without multiclassing. Okay he burns feats to get there but gets full BAB, bonus feats, etc. at the cost of missing one jump in Arcane Spellcasting.
Again why wouldn't every spellcaster enter the class? Apart from losing the Wizard Cap (wich is being replaced so trading one for another) and feat burn?

No - the "all martial" is still there. If you look, all I did was list the changes (for simplicity on my end - sorry since it clearly confuddled you j/k). Everything else about the EK remains the same.

Diverse Training is still there, bonus feats at 1, 5, and 9(? - can't remember) and the level 10 ability is a better one, and the level 10 +1 caster level is gone (so -2 caster levels overall)

Spacelard wrote:

Yea, confused when Caster Level gets mentioned in the same sentence as Spell Level.

So Spell Level 3rd drops to Spell Level 2nd.

But dumping the Martial Weapons prereq means that a spellcaster can take this PrC without multiclassing. Okay he burns feats to get there but gets full BAB, bonus feats, etc. at the cost of missing one jump in Arcane Spellcasting.
Again why wouldn't every spellcaster enter the class? Apart from losing the Wizard Cap (wich is being replaced so trading one for another) and feat burn?

No - the "all martial" is still there. If you look, all I did was list the changes (for simplicity on my end - sorry since it clearly confuddled you j/k). Everything else about the EK remains the same.

Diverse Training is still there, bonus feats at 1, 5, and 9(? - can't remember) and the level 10 ability is a better one, and the level 10 +1 caster level is gone (so -2 caster levels overall)

Cleared that up thanks.