I am very much reminded of the arguments on Bards being "teh suck". Most tended to rely on low "DPS" and few "save or suck/die" spells arguments. And how they are second string to everyone else.

Which is funny to me, since opinion on these points has since changed. It seems that buffing the party is considered a legitimate goal.

Part of the issue is the following assumption: the standard 4-person party. Personally, I tend to play with more like 6 person parties, so there is plenty of room for "2nd string" characters. Especially those that can fulfill more than 1 role. But the "standard 4" can work with "2nd string" as long as others are playing "2nd string" as well.

Consider the following party:
Eldritch Knight
Arcane Trickster
Cleric
Druid

Here is a very magic-heavy party, but they still have great combat potential. Additionally, they can ALL buff the party on round 1 and eliminate opposition on round 2. OR 3 of them could buff and the last could control.

How woulld this fare with a 5th person: a wizard? Well, he covers the partial roles both the EK and AT were covering, so it may be that they will now feel the PrC is giving them very little. Especially the EK, since he is more a "caster who fights" than a "fighter who casts".

Adding a fighter or rogue would produce similar results, pushing the PrC class into wanting to single-class. Now the question: Is this actually a weakness of the class? The answer is no, and here's why:

When characters sacrifice single-class power for multi-class versatility, they become adept at fulfilling multiple roles, which is the whole purpose. In any given fight, the Wiz may need to cast a control spell, and cleric and druid are buffing/wildshaping, but the enemy has not yet been de-buffed. The EK can cast bestow curse (- to con) on the giant and stand his ground waiting for the AT to flank. Next round the giant is toast. Had the EK been a fighter, he could have attacked, but that would not have been as effective as the Bestow Curse, which is a spell wizards hate to cast since it gets you within striking range, requires a touch, and still gives a save. There are several spells like that that casters tend to not want to use. they are neet spells, but not worth the risk. When you mitigate the risk element, the spells become viable.

That is the roll of an EK: to do the arcane casting the wiz is either unable to do (actions per round) or unwilling to do (touch attack the tentacle grapple monster).

Ahem ... if everything is fine with the Eldritch Knight, why did the Duskblade come to exist ?

I'll tell you why. The EK was an attempt to solve the problem of people wanting to play a fighter/wizard and having some synergy out of that. Just like with the Mystic Theurge (divine/arcane), the True Necromancer and several other PrCs, the idea was to overcome the shortcomings of the 3.5 multiclass system by making a class that combines features of both.

Except that it didn't work, really. There is no synergy in EK, none of his abilities help him become an efficient sword-swinging, spell-casting "hybrid".

Eventually, WotC realized the error of the PrC route, and came up with several base classes, such as Duskblade, Beguilder, Dread Necromancer.

The Duskblade works, because it has features that allow for efficient combination of casting and melee: channelling spells thru attacks, buffs, some classic utility spells and of course full BAB and spontaneous casting progression. Sure, no 9th level spells but you get a fully capable class that can provide lots of fun and the kick of having a martial warrior who uses spells as a meaningful way of augmenting his abilities.

Ahem ... if everything is fine with the Eldritch Knight, why did the Duskblade come to exist ?

Because the Duskblade is a fighter who casts. Look at the spells and abilities. The EK is a caster who fights. Completly different priorities. Like saying the Druid is a replacement battle Cleric or the Cleric is a replacement healer Druid. These roles are completly off, and so saying "why would one exist if the other is fine" is pretty much spinning in place.

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.

+1. I keep seeing these numbers and how they are "low". All of this seems to be assuming that you wont have ANY other members of your party contributing to the fight. 45 damage leads to 4.5 turns to kill a CR 15 challenge? What, is no one else in your party contributing to the fight? It seems a lot of people have a different view of what makes up usefulness , and the difference start at such a low level that these issues come up. It just brings to light what individual people view as important. Obviously some people want the EK to be an equally powerful mage and fighter, and anything less than that makes it suck. Sorry, don't buy that logic. I wonder if some of the people on this forum actually PLAY this game, or just sit down and do math/theory-crafting. Number don't lie, but they can be misleading...

A Man In Black wrote:

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.

There is no reason that all classes cannot operate at roughly equivalent power levels when by themselves, just as there is no reason that every class shouldn't bring something to the group as a whole. Why people insist upon arguing otherwise is beyond me.

This is the same sort of fanboy argument that I was referring to in my post above. "MONTHS AND MONTHS OF PLAYTESTING" obviously didn't cover all of the bases, and perhaps the numbers should have been run through a computer sim a few times so that additional tweaks could be made that were not based upon the flawed opinions of playtesters.

DPS + vs. CR 15 minus numbers numbers numbers = Everything that's wrong with the game IMO. On a long enough timeline everything fails. Crikey.

Seriously, would running a sample class through a computer sim make someone a better role player? You wanna make a wizard who gives up a little casting and gets a little more fightery? Play an EK. You don't want to? Don't play one. Mountains out of molehills people.

It's crazy how everyone gets when it comes to minutae of formulas and math equations on these boards. Maybe it works for you, but I can't justify a character based on numbers. Nobody is forcing anyone to play an EK. If it doesn't look like it works for what you want to play, don't play one. When I made the EK's I played as, the class worked for what I wanted to do. I didn't need a doctorate in advanced calculus to have fun casting spells and swinging a sword.

No class is perfect. No class is designed to do every little aspect of the gamer perfectly. In EVERY decent story you read, watch on TV, etc, the hero has flaws. The EK isn't perfect, but it wasn't supposed to be. All the math equations and solutions in the world doesn't make it a good, interesting character.

This is the same sort of fanboy argument that I was referring to in my post above. "MONTHS AND MONTHS OF PLAYTESTING" obviously didn't cover all of the bases, and perhaps the numbers should have been run through a computer sim a few times so that additional tweaks could be made that were not based upon the flawed opinions of playtesters.

And thus the Lord did speak, and the Fourth seal was opened...

Consider the following party:
Eldritch Knight
Arcane Trickster
Cleric
Druid

Bad-a$$.

Ya know, a lot of this conversation also needs to take into account the kind of DM and adventure's one is playing.

Now, I would guess that many of the optimizers and math-crunchers come from very difficult "Optimize-or-die" games, and as such are under the impression that if a single build isn't flawless, it's not worth playing.

However, just by looking at some of the iconics, it's clear that Paizo has designed a game that is meant to be fun and enjoyable to people of all walks of life. I mean, Harsk is an excellent example of what many consider to be an underpowered ranger build. I mean, LOOK AT HIM. Race choice doesn't fit. He uses freaking crossbows (no Str bonus). But he's still able to function in many of the modules presented by Paizo.

And, in the end, I think that's how we need to view characters. Yeah, I'll admit. Eldritch Knight (which I personally like as a F5/W5/EK10) is probably not as powerful as a fully optimized Fighter 20 or Wizard 20. In fact, I KNOW it's not as powerful. But the point is that my concept is not only playable, but fun. I personally really like the idea of playing a character that can wield a two-handed weapon with a Shield spell up, Spider Climb, and the Lunge and Vital Strike feats (which, combined with things like a Keen Falchion and Spell Critical, just make me happy inside). Sure, the in-between levels may not have as many "special features", but... I'm not playing the class for the awesome level 4 abilities. I'm playing it for the full experience, and the knowledge that I'll eventually be able to crit for 10d4+15d6 Cone of Cold + (Other). Sure, it demotes me from "God" to "Glass Cannon"... and maybe even a subpar one. But I can't think of a single group that's going to complain about the damage, OR that's going to complain about my buffs.

And if they do, I'll just play with a group of Pathfinder players, not mathematicians.

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.

Not to be glib, but the playtesting of the prestige classes started much later in the beta cycle. How much actual playtesting occurred with the EK Prestige Class were, by intent and structure, less than the PF Fighter or Wizard. So, to say that the EK has been fully vetted through the beta test process is perhaps inaccurate.

However, a cogent niche has been mentioned for the EK--the touch spell and close range spell master. I am wondering how that would work if optimized around being effective at delivering touch attacks, with say, a spiked gauntlet/tower shield/quickdraw reach weapon combo. Granted, the tower shield is in some ways a trap option, as taking cover against most high CR monsters can result in your shield gaining the broken condition. However, I can see a way to build around this idea, particularly with easy access to mending and make whole. Anyone want to do the build on this? And can the aberrant bloodline sorceror do it better?

Consider the following party:
Eldritch Knight
Arcane Trickster
Cleric
Druid

Here is a very magic-heavy party, but they still have great combat potential. Additionally, they can ALL buff the party on round 1 and eliminate opposition on round 2. OR 3 of them could buff and the last could control.

A magic heavy party packing 2 healers - which are also two of the most powerful classes in the game.

Ahem ... if everything is fine with the Eldritch Knight, why did the Duskblade come to exist ?

I'll tell you why. The EK was an attempt to solve the problem of people wanting to play a fighter/wizard and having some synergy out of that. Just like with the Mystic Theurge (divine/arcane), the True Necromancer and several other PrCs, the idea was to overcome the shortcomings of the 3.5 multiclass system by making a class that combines features of both.

Except that it didn't work, really. There is no synergy in EK, none of his abilities help him become an efficient sword-swinging, spell-casting "hybrid".

Eventually, WotC realized the error of the PrC route, and came up with several base classes, such as Duskblade, Beguilder, Dread Necromancer.

The Duskblade works, because it has features that allow for efficient combination of casting and melee: channelling spells thru attacks, buffs, some classic utility spells and of course full BAB and spontaneous casting progression. Sure, no 9th level spells but you get a fully capable class that can provide lots of fun and the kick of having a martial warrior who uses spells as a meaningful way of augmenting his abilities.

You are forgetting the Abjurant Champion. The Eldritch Knight was Tiny Tim to the Abjurant Champion's Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Consider the following party:
Eldritch Knight
Arcane Trickster
Cleric
Druid

Here is a very magic-heavy party, but they still have great combat potential. Additionally, they can ALL buff the party on round 1 and eliminate opposition on round 2. OR 3 of them could buff and the last could control.

A magic heavy party packing 2 healers - which are also two of the most powerful classes in the game.

Granted, but there are very few divine multi-class PrC's that still heal. If we take healing out of the equation, consider:

Eldritch Knight
Arcane Archer
Arcane Trickster
Dragon Disciple

Still heavy magic, still can throw attacks and buffs on round 1, all are very competent fighters. Would this party be greatly improved by:

Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard

I don't really think so.

Granted, but there are very few divine multi-class PrC's that still heal. If we take healing out of the equation, consider:

Eldritch Knight
Arcane Archer
Arcane Trickster
Dragon Disciple

Which was my original point. The 3.5 core PrCs sucked and Paizo did nothing to improve any of them but the Dragon Disciple and Assassin.

Still heavy magic, still can throw attacks and buffs on round 1, all are very competent fighters. Would this party be greatly improved by:

Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Wizard

I don't really think so.

Your argument here is a fallacy. You are listing PrCs and then saying a base class party wouldn't improve it. You fail to list what classes were used to get into the PrCs. There is AT LEAST 3 levels of Rogue and 1 level of Bard or Sorcerer, via the PrC reqs.

Ya know this has degenerated into what it always does

Math Lords: This class is teh suck, Math has spoken!
Other folks: It does not play like that in games I have seen
Math lords : No! Math has spoken it is suck!
Other folks: Really it powerful it my game
Math lords : No! it is the suck.In a vacuum it can not solo the game
Other folk: No one can do that.
Math lords : No. Math has spoken, it sucks

Rinse, repeat.

Gorbacz wrote:

Ahem ... if everything is fine with the Eldritch Knight, why did the Duskblade come to exist ?

Because the Duskblade is a fighter who casts. Look at the spells and abilities. The EK is a caster who fights. Completly different priorities.

...and this is why I decided to make the iron mage class, instead of fiddling with the EK. (Fresh draft, by the way.)

It's the same reason I'm so delighted by the cavalier and witch. I've seen a lot of players using paladins when a cavalier would better suit their character concept, and for myself, the witch is what I usually want to be playing when I make a druid. This doesn't step on the toes of those existing core classes; rather, it removes the temptation to stretch them into roles that they don't quite fit.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Ahem ... if everything is fine with the Eldritch Knight, why did the Duskblade come to exist ?

Because the Duskblade is a fighter who casts. Look at the spells and abilities. The EK is a caster who fights. Completly different priorities.

...and this is why I decided to make the iron mage class, instead of fiddling with the EK. (Fresh draft, by the way.)

It's the same reason I'm so delighted by the cavalier and witch. I've seen a lot of players using paladins when a cavalier would better suit their character concept, and for myself, the witch is what I usually want to be playing when I make a druid. This doesn't step on the toes of those existing core classes; rather, it removes the temptation to stretch them into roles that they don't quite fit.

Have I said that Tejon's Iron Mage is pretty good...

And that party would be greatly hurt without access to healing.

.
.
.
Your argument here is a fallacy. You are listing PrCs and then saying a base class party wouldn't improve it. You fail to list what classes were used to get into the PrCs. There is AT LEAST 3 levels of Rogue and 1 level of Bard or Sorcerer, via the PrC reqs.
Also, you left you Cleric and Druid because the answer would obviously be "yes."

Sigh. How I DO dislike repeating myself...

I specifically said "If we take healing out of the equation" because I specifically said "there are very few divine multi-class PrC's that still heal". Was this not specific enough for you? Very well:

If we want to include the healers, we are left with the Cleric and the Druid, which you objected to by stating they were the most powerful classes in the game. I proposed a new list that disregarded healing, since we do not have a divine equivelant of the EK, AA, AT, or DD. Your new objection is that they cannot heal. However, until such time as divine variants of these classes are created, your condition is thoroughly unfounded.

Now, as to the fallacy. Exactly WHICH fallacy are you reffering to? Nevermind, because it makes no difference. The objection you left with was that I did not provide full level blocks for the party. However, that is entirely unnecessary, since the power level can be easily inferred by refrencing the multi-class requirements. If you must have something, though:

Wiz5/Ftr1/EK5
Rgr6/Wiz1/AA4
Rog3/Wiz3/AT5
Sor5/DD6

vs

Ftr11
Rgr11
Rog11
Wiz11

And yes, I DID trade out the Sorc for a Wizard, since it would make a more powerful party overall. No strawmen here. Very similar comparisons, per party role.

Now the question again: Disregarding the lack of healing, would party 1 be significantly improved by becoming party 2?

Now the question again: Disregarding the lack of healing, would party 1 be significantly improved by becoming party 2?

Party 1 isn't even lacking healing. The Ranger can use wands.

I proposed a new list that disregarded healing, since we do not have a divine equivelant of the EK, AA, AT, or DD. Your new objection is that they cannot heal.

My new additional-thought objection after my systematically addressing your list and the issues with PrCs and the abilities and issues with those in general.

The objection you left with was that I did not provide full level blocks for the party.

No, my objection is based around you not telling what their previous classes were, of unimportant levelage, while demanding I find the best fit of some second hand group of equally leveled base classes.

However, that is entirely unnecessary, since the power level can be easily inferred by refrencing the multi-class requirements.

But the classes that were used to meet the requirements can't be.

And yes, I DID trade out the Sorc for a Wizard, since it would make a more powerful party overall. No strawmen here. Very similar comparisons, per party role.

Now the question again: Disregarding the lack of healing, would party 1 be significantly improved by becoming party 2?

Of course it would, especially in PF.

The Fighter and Ranger are going to be more capable in direct combat. The Rogue is going to hurt alot more if it flanks, never mind the talents.

Of course it would, especially in PF.

At the very least, an 11th level caster > 2 level 8 casters, lvl 4 caster, lvl 9 caster.

Really? You think a single lvl 11 caster is better than 2 8th lvl casters, a lvl 4, and a lvl 9? Even considering the economy of actions? The fact that a major buff, debuff, attack spell, and minor effect can be produced in the same round vs a single spell is completly trivial compared to a single 6th lvl spell?

I am curious how you figure this. I mean, you could chain a Black Tentacles, Confusion, and Cloudkill in the same round, while the AA casts Mirror Image on the EK to prepare for round 2. That seems rather good to me. Perhaps something in 6th lvl is vastly superior?

The Fighter and Ranger are going to be more capable in direct combat. The Rogue is going to hurt alot more if it flanks, never mind the talents.

The fighter will be more combat-oriented than the EK, but the ranger has given up almost nothing and gained minor spells. He could have increased protection with a shield spell or take out a composite bow 2 str pts higher than he normally has with a bulls strength. Not to mention just using cats grace to increase to-hit's.

And the Rogue can sneak attack with a scorching ray.

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Now the question again: Disregarding the lack of healing, would party 1 be significantly improved by becoming party 2?

Party 1 isn't even lacking healing. The Ranger can use wands.

True. I forget sometimes that Rangers are also divine casters.

Really? You think a single lvl 11 caster is better than 2 8th lvl casters, a lvl 4, and a lvl 9?

Yes. More spells, then we can factor in pure Wizard abilities from specialization.

Even considering the economy of actions? The fact that a major buff, debuff, attack spell, and minor effect can be produced in the same round vs a single spell is completly trivial compared to a single 6th lvl spell?

The question is of course "what spell." A level 11 Wizard has access to 6th level spells.

I am curious how you figure this. I mean, you could chain a Black Tentacles, Confusion, and Cloudkill in the same round, while the AA casts Mirror Image on the EK to prepare for round 2. That seems rather good to me. Perhaps something in 6th lvl is vastly superior?

I cast "Anti-magic field."

The fighter will be more combat-oriented than the EK, but the ranger has given up almost nothing and gained minor spells. He could have increased protection with a shield spell or take out a composite bow 2 str pts higher than he normally has with a bulls strength. Not to mention just using cats grace to increase to-hit's.

The Ranger is not notably more powerful unless the FE is one of the opposing foes.

And the Rogue can sneak attack with a scorching ray.

With far fewer d6s.

I cast "Anti-magic field."

Your 11th level wizard shuts off his class features?

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.

No amount of ingenuity is going to make that an effective amount of damage. It's just an illustration of the fact that even an EK who specializes really heavily in doing damage is better off doing something other than doing damage.

Cartigan wrote:

I cast "Anti-magic field."

Your 11th level wizard shuts off his class features?

I made my point.

Ya know this has degenerated into what it always does

Math Lords: This class is teh suck, Math has spoken!
Other folks: It does not play like that in games I have seen
Math lords : No! Math has spoken it is suck!
Other folks: Really it powerful it my game
Math lords : No! it is the suck.In a vacuum it can not solo the game
Other folk: No one can do that.
Math lords : No. Math has spoken, it sucks

Rinse, repeat.

^ THIS.

Seriously, people that hate the class are the people arguing that one should play a pure wizard, or pure fighter. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. We've already established that, mathematically, you probably ARE superior playing either a Wizard20 or Fighter20, but what if that's not what you want to play? What if, heaven forbid, you wanna play a mix of the two? The option presents itself. Now, as far as damage goes, it'll be a bit inferior. As far as spellcasting goes, it'll be inferior. But it's still FUNCTIONAL. I mean, why on EARTH would I play a monk when I can play a fighter? Fighter's do more flat-out damage, and generally have better AC. Why would I ever play any class other than Fighter/Druid/Cleric/Wizard? I mean, they're the best at what they do, right? Sure.

But, as I said, people are missing the point. The point is that it's a viable option, and CAN work. How WELL it works compared to combination (x)could be debated ad nauseum, but the class is playable, and fun for some people. Now, if YOU think the class is terrible, fine. Don't play one. But some of us actually like the concept, and want to play it. And for those of us, the EK exists.

Seriously, let us play the game instead of shoving numbers down our throats until we bow to your will. I promise, EK's won't be getting a party killed any time soon because they didn't have full spell progression.

Yes. More spells, then we can factor in pure Wizard abilities from specialization.

A jest. And people say you have no sense of humor...

I cast "Anti-magic field."

?? I mean really, wtf? How is THAT supposed to end an encounter with anything other than a Magic Golem? Are you saying that vs the party of caster that is your defensive tactic? Then the EK, AT, AA, and DD walk in and eat you for lunch?

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

And the Rogue can sneak attack with a scorching ray.

With far fewer d6s.

This really needs a call-out. Rogue 11 deals 6d6 SA dmg. TWF, that's a possible 24d6, adjusted because you need to hit their full AC (probably more like 10-12 d6 after adjustments). Scorching Ray CL8 is 8d6, plus an additional 4d6 from SA being an AT. That's 12d6 on a touch attack.

So, come again?

Ya know this has degenerated into what it always does

Math Lords: This class is teh suck, Math has spoken!
Other folks: It does not play like that in games I have seen
Math lords : No! Math has spoken it is suck!
Other folks: Really it powerful it my game
Math lords : No! it is the suck.In a vacuum it can not solo the game
Other folk: No one can do that.
Math lords : No. Math has spoken, it sucks

Rinse, repeat.

With the other folks neglecting to mention that it worked just fine in their games because of factors not mentioned, e.g. GM pity.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ya know this has degenerated into what it always does

Math Lords: This class is teh suck, Math has spoken!
Other folks: It does not play like that in games I have seen
Math lords : No! Math has spoken it is suck!
Other folks: Really it powerful it my game
Math lords : No! it is the suck.In a vacuum it can not solo the game
Other folk: No one can do that.
Math lords : No. Math has spoken, it sucks

Rinse, repeat.

With the other folks neglecting to mention that it worked just fine in their games because of factors not mentioned, e.g. GM pity.

With the Math Lords neglecting to mention how their games and GM's were obviously superior to every other D&D player's in existance, and played the game the right way...

*Edit: On a less sarcastic note, you are, by extension, saying that the writers of many Adventure Paths are terrible designers because the premade characters can make it through the adventure without being heavily optimized, and some are, in fact, sub-par. I feel this conflicts with the intent of the designers, which leads me to believe that the statement about "GM Pity" is inapplicable.

With the Math Lords neglecting to mention how their games and GM's were obviously superior to every other D&D player's in existance, and played the game the right way...

It's not badwrongfun, it's conflicting goals.

Conceptually, eldritch knights are completely awesome, especially the capstone ability. However, they are currently a mechanical trainwreck and require a lot of GM pity to work right. I'm not telling people not to play EKs (unless the GM is not on board with adjusting things on the fly to make it possible, in which case playing a gimped cohort or a corpse is Not Fun); I'm illustrating the need to fix/replace the EK, either on the fly in a game-by-game basis or on a broader please-take-a-second-whack-at-this-Paizo basis.

3e, and indeed all RPGs, are a lot less cool in a game where the GM has no pity, but it's not a good idea to design the game to rely upon it. When people say "It worked fine!" and neglect to mention (or aren't even aware) that it worked fine because the GM busted his butt to make it work fine, that obstructs efforts to make it obvious that the GM has his work cut out for him or efforts to ask Paizo to address the issue so the GM can focus on other tasks.

?? I mean really, wtf? How is THAT supposed to end an encounter with anything other than a Magic Golem? Are you saying that vs the party of caster that is your defensive tactic? Then the EK, AT, AA, and DD walk in and eat you for lunch?

I answered your question. There is also Greater Dispel Magic. Among other things.

This really needs a call-out. Rogue 11 deals 6d6 SA dmg. TWF, that's a possible 24d6, adjusted because you need to hit their full AC (probably more like 10-12 d6 after adjustments). Scorching Ray CL8 is 8d6, plus an additional 4d6 from SA being an AT. That's 12d6 on a touch attack.

So, come again?

Of course you can only ranged sneak attack from hidden. Which I am guessing you can do every other round but you are still going to be out of 2nd level spells rather quickly. So what, maybe 4, including impromptu sneak attack?

re: Cartigan, M,M, TOZ, et al.:

Guys, this PVP discussion of single-classed character(s) vs. multiclassed character(s) is missing the point. D&D is not and never really has been a PVP game.

The real failing of the multiclassed party is less in combat and more in utility tasks. Eventually, the multiclassed party is going to be expected to have a particular spell of level X, when they only have X-1 or X-2, and that's going to be a big problem. That's the real weakness of the multiclassed party.

I have no problem with mix-up PrCs. The problem is the core PrCs were lame in 3.5 and even lamer now that the base classes got a once over. They only really fixed up the Dragon Disciple and the Assassin. The rest should have gotten updated to Pathfinder power level or dropped.

re: Cartigan, M,M, TOZ, et al.:

Guys, this PVP discussion of single-classed character(s) vs. multiclassed character(s) is missing the point. D&D is not and never really has been a PVP game.

QFT

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

I cast "Anti-magic field."

Your 11th level wizard shuts off his class features?

I made my point.

You made a statement, and obviously we didn't get your point. But I suppose it is immaterial to the argument as MiB said.

Cartigan wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

I cast "Anti-magic field."

Your 11th level wizard shuts off his class features?

I made my point.

You made a statement, and obviously we didn't get your point. But I suppose it is immaterial to the argument as MiB said.

I was stating a single 6th level spell that showed up all 5th level and below spells (the 5th level spell being a single one the Eldritch Knight could theoretically cast - if he had a 15 Int)

I was stating a single 6th level spell that showed up all 5th level and below spells (the 5th level spell being a single one the Eldritch Knight could theoretically cast - if he had a 15 Int)

That completely shuts down anything the user could do. Heck, the rest of them could just shoot the wizard full of arrows then, since he'd have only his Dex to AC. But like I said, we could argue this back and forth all day, so I <redacted> offer truce.

The real failing of the multiclassed party is less in combat and more in utility tasks. Eventually, the multiclassed party is going to be expected to have a particular spell of level X, when they only have X-1 or X-2, and that's going to be a big problem. That's the real weakness of the multiclassed party.

Now this is actually a REAL argument, and one worth considering. If the party is multiclassed, there is a chance they will be unable to do X when it is needed because they only have access to spells X-1.

However, this is more an issue with modules and printed adventures, so depends on the kinds of games you play.

Certainly I can remember puzzles requiring odd spells (the Open/Close cantrip stands out as a particularly bizzare example). And it is true the primary caster may not have that spell known or prepared. However, all other factors held equal, if the party needs an X level spell and NO caster can actually cast said spell level, they have now a lower probability of succeeding in the task that a party with a caster who CAN cast spell level X.

And there is no real answer to this, ultimately. You sacrifice power for versatility, you get what you asked for.

But, to turn it around a bit, if the puzzle requires X level spell, and multiple casters in the multiclass party CAN cast spell level X, then they actually have a GREATER chance of knowing and having that spell available.

The question becomes "How often does the puzzle require X level spell?"

And there is no real answer to this, ultimately. You sacrifice power for versatility, you get what you asked for.

But parties of single-classed characters are also versatile. A fighter, a wizard, a cleric, and a rogue as a whole are just as versatile as a fighter/rogue, a rogue/wizard, a cleric/wizard, and a fighter/cleric. Moreso, because they have access to both high-level and low-level spells.

So you're sacrificing power for...?

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

And there is no real answer to this, ultimately. You sacrifice power for versatility, you get what you asked for.

But parties of single-classed characters are also versatile. A fighter, a wizard, a cleric, and a rogue as a whole are just as versatile as a fighter/rogue, a rogue/wizard, a cleric/wizard, and a fighter/cleric. Moreso, because they have access to both high-level and low-level spells.

So you're sacrificing power for...?

Not exactly. Multiclass party (MCP) can cast twice as many arcane spells per round, or heal twice as often per round, or have two sneak attackers chewing through DR, or have 2 characters stand toe-to-toe with the enemy.

Singleclass party (SCP) has a single better fighter, who cannot actually do as much as the two lower level fighters in MCP, a single better rogue, who cannot actually do as much as the two lower level rogues in MCP, a single better cleric, who cannot actually do as much as the two lower level clerics in MCP, and a single better wizard, who cannot actually do as much as the two lower level wizards in MCP.

This is an argument of quantity vs quality.

CAN the MCP get outclassed? Yes, but I would wager there is NEVER a fight where someone cannot contribute meaningfully. Against single CR appropriate encounters, MCP will defeat the encounter just as easily as SCP.

But, this all comes down to the kinds of games you play/run. This will not work in some, and work marvelously in others.

At least in this thread the argument is making those classes part of a party and including the roles that most parties need to succeed.

Now we can optimize the entire party and the optimizer can create all the PCs for them and jump in when you play the PC wrong....

Let people play what they will and if they are playing with optimizers really look at something unique for the other PC... Like let the cleric channel positive energy or counterspell with the effect....

Your the DM fudge a little and watch those optimizers!

Not exactly. Multiclass party (MCP) can cast twice as many arcane spells per round, or heal twice as often per round, or have two sneak attackers chewing through DR, or have 2 characters stand toe-to-toe with the enemy.

But most of those things are not even close to twice as useful when doubled. Healing is a waste of actions. "Sneak attacking" is not a thing you do; it's a restricted bonus to dealing damage, which is a thing you do. (So a fighter/rogue, for example, is less versatile in combat than a fighter due to positioning requirements on SA.)

In other cases, Team Single Class is as good or better at the job when taken as a whole. A fighter and a cleric are just as good at standing in front as a fighter/cleric and fighter/rogue; arguably better. Both parties only get four actions per round.

The only things that Team Multiclass does better are spam low-level spells and sneak around (due to a quirk in how sneaking works in D&D). Setting aside sneaking around as a coincidence of the multiclasses chosen, how often do you see a challenge that is solved by spamming low-level spells, and is that worth being worse at everything else?

However, this is more an issue with modules and printed adventures, so depends on the kinds of games you play.

The question becomes "How often does the puzzle require X level spell?"

This is particularly a problem with higher level modules where X and only X will work. Bad design IMHO. Some designers feel that higher level adventures require railroading or bizarrely constructed magical phenomena. Some of the AP's demonstrate this only too well - you have to do x, y & z or you have no chance at success (Skeletons of Scarwall, and the end of Second Darkness).

This is particularly a problem with higher level modules where X and only X will work. Bad design IMHO. Some designers feel that higher level adventures require railroading or bizarrely constructed magical phenomena. Some of the AP's demonstrate this only too well - you have to do x, y & z or you have no chance at success (Skeletons of Scarwall, and the end of Second Darkness).

Even when it's not "YOU MUST CAST SPELL X", after a certain level designers have to assume that the party can do certain things or else see the entire adventure short-circuited. If I'm writing a 10th-level adventure, I'm going to assume that you've got speedy long-distance travel and resurrection magic rather than including a long ocean voyage you can bypass or having a story that's short-circuited by whipping up a Raise Dead.

The multiclass party eventually falls behind.

The only things that Team Multiclass does better are spam low-level spells and sneak around (due to a quirk in how sneaking works in D&D). Setting aside sneaking around as a coincidence of the multiclasses chosen, how often do you see a challenge that is solved by spamming low-level spells, and is that worth being worse at everything else?

Well, volumes have been written about utility low-level spells. Myself, my Illusionist needed every 3rd level spell he could get, and I use Major Image all the time to confound and sometimes outright bypass challenges.

With the party you present, I can see the potential for 2 wiz spells and a cleric spell on round 1. OR 1 cleric spells and 1 wiz. I think haste, slow, prayer is a great opening combo for a fight where 3'4 of the characters can meele. Ambushed by winter wolves, there is a good chance one or both the non-rogues can get Resist Energy cast on them (the rogues can evade). If you are holding the high ground and are a bunch of archers vs meele'ers, spam grease. I count two divine favors or shields of faith, or one of each that can be brought out. And buff/debuff is generally considered stronger than direct attack. And imagine how a zombie horde would be pulverized by 2 clerics vs 1 (law of averages).

There are plenty of low-level spells that can be spammed for good effect. Look at the earlier example of my arcane-heavy party.

What you fail to mention with spell level X to accomplish a specific goal, is what if the single class arcane caster doesn't have spell level X for whatever reason or there is a lack of a full arcane cster in the party. A player wants to play bard for whatever reason may be what then? Do you just give up? No you find a way around the obstacle so does a Multiclass Arcane casting character. That could be buying a scroll or utilizing UMD for a spell trigger item. Heck you can even hire the friendly NPC Mage. There are other alternatives available. Multiclass casters are a level or two behind but they catch up. The Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster might not have the equivalent spell level as the single class character, however you have to admit in a tight spot they can rely upon their other skills. What happpens when the wizard is prevented from preparing their spells for the day because of insuffcient rest or they have to meet a deadline somewhere and have to rush. That wizard is going to have really economize on his magic and say he is all cast out well he is in trouble. The Eldritch Knight can be a fighter in a tight jam The Arcane trickster can do some rogue tricks to pick up the slack. Even Mystic Theurge can put on a Breastplate and tank when necessary. There is a level of balance that is quite playable.

If I'm facing X CR 15 monster with insane AC, and I feel I need to whip out spells, I'm going to cast spells. I can cast level 7 spells as well as the full caster (again, I cast as a 15th thanks to handy trait). And when he makes me make a fort save, I'm a good bit better off than one's standard caster. When he does mega-death attack before I can get buffed up enough, after he's gotten through my fighter line, there's a chance I'll be thankful for those 11 HP. I can actually hit with my ray attacks if I decide those are appropraite.

The bow is there when the rest of the party seems to have the encounter "handled", I said myself that is was good, it's great if we have to do 10 encounters since I can be a good damage output source for the less threatning encounters and conserve spells for the more serious threats.

Straight BAB, fort save bonuses, and hp are NOTHING to sneeze at, yes they're boring, but they are good class features :). And again, I'd take this guy over a 15th wizard on pretty much any fight you make, especially if you're forcing us to solo non-buffed.

Robert Young wrote:

This is particularly a problem with higher level modules where X and only X will work. Bad design IMHO. Some designers feel that higher level adventures require railroading or bizarrely constructed magical phenomena. Some of the AP's demonstrate this only too well - you have to do x, y & z or you have no chance at success (Skeletons of Scarwall, and the end of Second Darkness).

Even when it's not "YOU MUST CAST SPELL X", after a certain level designers have to assume that the party can do certain things or else see the entire adventure short-circuited. If I'm writing a 10th-level adventure, I'm going to assume that you've got speedy long-distance travel and resurrection magic rather than including a long ocean voyage you can bypass or having a story that's short-circuited by whipping up a Raise Dead.

The multiclass party eventually falls behind.

You have a very good point here. My new campaign is a fantastic example of this. The first half of the campaign involves the PCs heading for, getting in contact with, and convincing a neighboring nation to come to the aid of their home nation. The next quarter of the campaign, they'll be doing ALL the rest of the nations their home nation is friendly with. Without high-speed travel and teleportation, that structure would have been very difficult. Fortunately we have 2 full casters and I run a high-powered campaign where teleporters between many major cities exist. So for my campaign world it's not as much of an issue, but for others it would certainly.

With the party you present, I can see the potential for 2 wiz spells and a cleric spell on round 1. OR 1 cleric spells and 1 wiz. I think haste, slow, prayer is a great opening combo for a fight where 3'4 of the characters can meele.

You're assuming that multiclassed characters get two actions again. If three people are casting spells, only one person can melee. Is one extra round of Haste worth losing a full spell level worth of spells and also being worse at everything because you split your stats and also having fewer spells?

What's the marginal utility of being able to switch roles like that, instead of having people do the same thing? How is that marginal utility more useful than the marginal utility of simply having more spells and higher-level spells?

Remember, only four actions per round, period.

What you fail to mention with spell level X to accomplish a specific goal, is what if the single class arcane caster doesn't have spell level X for whatever reason or there is a lack of a full arcane cster in the party. [...] Heck you can even hire the friendly NPC Mage.

I think that it's telling that you suggest that the multiclassed party can simply hire a single-classed character to do the job for them, yet nobody suggests that a single-classed party would ever need to hire multiclassed characters ever.