|
Well the elf-like warrior-wizard is a staple of D&D since D&D Basic (or earlier?) when elves were a class unto themselves that could fight like a human fighter and also cast spells like a human wizard. I totally understand the appeal given this history and the various permutations since the early 1980's... I think Seltyiel fits the archetype nicely -- he's certainly appears to be able to kick plenty of mid-to-high level butt even if he's not "perfect" -- and I bet the new PFRPG will spawn a great many variants on this theme!
But as a few have already posted, perhaps we need a new term for this multiclass build other than "gish"?
My suggestions, albeit not original, are:
1) mageblade (unfortunately that might confuse people with the AE mage blade)
2) arcane warrior, arcane fighter
3) fighter-mage
4) spellblade, spellfighter, spellwarrior, spellsword
5) warriormage, warrior-wizard
6) warmage (nope, done already in Complete Arcane), battlemage
Pity, I wish we could adopt the term "warlock", but it has been used already and people are generally accustomed to that. "Warlock" would have been an ideal term to replace "gish" I think.
I like using ***mage or mage*** because that way we include fighter/sorcerers with fighter/wizards, indeed any weapon wielder + arcane spellcaster combo...
Ultimately, the trick is to find the word/syllable combination that "fits"... Any thoughts about what generic term could fit characters like the 13th iconic? Could we, set a precedent here that others would happily follow?
Can Seltyiel inspire something beyond "gish"? :)
(Something to repeat all over the "interwebs" and convert da wurld? lol)
Hm.. I don't know... how about ELDRITCH KNIGHT? It has a good ring to it. ;D
Hm.. I don't know... how about ELDRITCH KNIGHT? It has a good ring to it. ;DYou mean "ek" in shorthand? lol
Yup.
Don't mess with the Elks. They do... stuff.
|
Don't mess with the Elks. They do... stuff.
"Elks. Just say no."
Well, that's what a button on my jacket says at least. While I understand what was originally intended by it, what it actually conveys is a tad different. And wonderfully ridiculous. I often get questioned about the button, and in response go on a rant about the danger of elks, how the liberal media downplays this danger, and how celebrities and/or corporations actually try to promotes elks to children. I try to do it with a straight face (which usually only lasts until the expression of the questioner takes a turn for the worse and forces me to laugh).
Anyways, beyond all the crunching, this preview offered a look at what Wizards (and presumably Clerics) can look forward to when going prestige. In the beta version it wasn't clear how domains/specialists would progress in prestige classes, and it seems that since they've gone back to bonus spell slots it'll work exactly as 3.5. Keep your spell slots as you prestige out, but your abilities become stagnant.
That's a very good point... and I was just thinking it *didn't* work like that - given the youtube preview look at the cleric made it seem like the domain spells were specific powers granted under "Special". Ohh.. probably "Channel Energy Xd6" now that I think about it.
Yes, character optimization is horrible. We should, under no circumstances, push the limits of game mechanics and examine the reason why a collection of relevant abilities to a character concept has such a fundamental conflict. Instead of worrying about why the feats we take get weaker as we gain class abilities, we should just take Alertness and sweep it under the rug (or better yet, start house ruling before it's even out of the box).
Yes, character optimization is horrible. We should, under no circumstances, push the limits of game mechanics and examine the reason why a collection of relevant abilities to a character concept has such a fundamental conflict. Instead of worrying about why the feats we take get weaker as we gain class abilities, we should just take Alertness and sweep it under the rug (or better yet, start house ruling before it's even out of the box).
Maybe having a character that can do everything all at once is not the point? I like having to make choices in combat. I like having the possibility of failing when my character tries something tricky. Having a 20% chance to fail a caster concentration check on my most powerful spell is fair and adds risk to combat and casting. Having a 10% chance to have my free spell fail due to armor is fine if I choose to use other items for my swift action.
Complaining that you have a limit on swift actions per round and how that shows the character is broken is like complaining when a cleric cannot swing his mace, heal his party thief, buff the party fighter, and cast command on the enemy orc all in the same round. Each of those items is part of the cleric and if he cannot do every action every round the rules are broken.
The EK has skills that allow him to cast spells in combat with no failure due to armor. He has the ability to swing a sword with some affect. He has the ability to cast a spell in combat. And he has the ability to get off a free spell when he crits in combat with a 10% chance of failure. The ability to do two of those things in the same round without haste or other magic is a good thing. The fact that I have to make choices and choose what is tactically best for me at the moment keeps the game and combat interesting.
I understand why people want to make the "best" character in the game. I have done that on many occasions myself. But what is best will vary by player, by session, and by campaign. As part of a role playing game, organic characters that develop in play are often more entertaining than the most perfect build that is planned out before a dice is ever rolled.
I thought this preview was a nice example of what the new rule system can due while staying true to the past flavor of this character. OK – this fanboy will now go back to lurking and eagerly awaiting the big damm book in the mail. :)
Director of Games
|
Yes, character optimization is horrible. We should, under no circumstances, push the limits of game mechanics and examine the reason why a collection of relevant abilities to a character concept has such a fundamental conflict. Instead of worrying about why the feats we take get weaker as we gain class abilities, we should just take Alertness and sweep it under the rug (or better yet, start house ruling before it's even out of the box).
Daron,
I don't think that anyone is saying that, but this is not the place for such discussions and I will reiterate why. The characters previewed were not necessarily designed with optimization in mind. We wanted to show off specific aspects of the game, and sometimes that desire runs counter to making the best character possible. Most PCs never really end up that way anyway. Characters take feats, spells, and skills that suit their needs as they gain levels, making the ideal of a perfect character hard to attain. To top it off, everyone's idea of perfection and flawed is different. We will never agree, and such discussions usually just lead to arguments and flame wars. During this preview process, that is hardly useful.
So.. lets just drop the snark and move on. Its no big deal.. we are almost there. Next week folks... next week!
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
PS: Like my new Avatar. This one is only for me, so it will be easy to pick out my posts...
Ick... I wish I hadn't read this. It managed to hit a lot of my pet peeves at once.
Having a large number of feats which only one class can take is dumb. Arcane spell failure is dumb. "Arcane Armor Training" is a poorly designed feat, even if you ignore the fact that it doesn't stack with Arcane Strike which also doesn't stack with the EK capstone. Feats which only work on a crit aren't necessarily dumb, but probably are (they tend to either be incredibly weak or way too powerful. Probably the former). Mutually exclusive feats are dumb by default and having a third feat which lets you use both of the feats you've already paid for doesn't really mitigate that.
I really hope that either swift actions or quickened spells work differently in PRPG now. I find it hard to believe that they'd give him a quicken metamagic rod if he can't actually cast a quickened spell without suffering arcane spell failure.
It's frustrating to wait this long for the final version of a game and already find myself scribbling houserules.
|
|
Yes, character optimization is horrible. We should, under no circumstances, push the limits of game mechanics and examine the reason why a collection of relevant abilities to a character concept has such a fundamental conflict. Instead of worrying about why the feats we take get weaker as we gain class abilities, we should just take Alertness and sweep it under the rug (or better yet, start house ruling before it's even out of the box).
:rolleyes:
|
|
All this non-optimization reminds me of those beautiful character cards from AD&D, 2nd Edition. Those characters weren't built to perfection. They weren't optimized for combat. They weren't "Uber", but they didn't have to be. They inspired the imagination; they helped me dream about distant places, strange worlds, worlds where physics worked differently than here because of a strange science known as magic. These characters weren't perfect. Their imperfections made them beautiful. They were flawed. A dark sorcerer riding a red dragon could probably kill them in one swoop.
But if they got away. If they survived that fatal encounter that destroyed their village, or their castle, or whatever, and found a sage wondering in the desert or a magical glowing sword that sealed their fate for the rest of their lives, or perhaps helped a prince establish a kingdom far, far away before he could return for his revenge, or otherwise face character development (I think I just felt a huge wave of nausea moving through power gamers everywhere.)... A character is not complete as a bunch of stats or uber-feats or superpowers, or the best spells in the game. A character is the beginning of a story, a long and beautiful one, if he is willing to face his own death, and the failure of pride, envy, and jealousy: all the petty emotions that force us to squabble among ourselves as we frequently do...
To me, that is the magic of this game. In 2nd Edition, this was a game of story-telling and magic, mysteries and fights with undead, vampires, dragons, orcs, or strange monsters from beyond. Survival sometimes meant running away from an encounter. You don't see that too often these days. Hopefully, though, with Pathfinder bringing back not only 3.5 but the same story-focused gaming that was present in 2nd Edition, we can see those beautiful dreams come back.
I totally agree that iconics or preview characters don't need to (and aren't supposed to) be optimal.
However, I think the point which that poster was raising is that this character (a very standard gish)'s powers actively get in the way of eachother, and this indicates a problem with the underlying mechanics, and why wasn't this issue fixed since the Beta, and why furthermore does the EK's capstone work in a way that exacerbates the issue rather than making the abilities work well together like it's supposed to?
Ok, so one gripe is that Arcane Strike doesn't stack with Arcane Armor Proficiency because they both use your swift action, and that both interfere with the EK's capstone of FREE QUICKENED SPELLS. Seriously, Quicken spell for no cost what-so-ever. Let me make sure I'm understanding all this. You want to:
- Have a high BAB to rival a Fighter.
- Have a high spellcasting level to rival a Wizard.
- Cast wizard/sorcerer spells while armored without fear of spell failure.
- Gain an above and beyond bonus to your damage based on your arcane caster level.
- Gain a quickened spell roughly every or every other round (hasted keen rapier with 5 attacks) without having to pay the 4 spell level cost or even having to decide which spells in advance.
- Have 50%+ the hit points of a regular mage.
This is a "have your cake and eat it" moment, guys. It's probably pretty rare that you'll be using Arcane Strike for your attacks and Arcane Armor Proficiency for your spells in the same round before the capstone, so it's not like either is wasted. And if you don't like Arcane Armor Proficiency, just invest in some Mithril armor (or Twilight if you're not core). Once you get your capstone, save your Arcane Strike for the point at which you don't have any offensive spells left or are just doing the mop-up. Seriously, it's free damage if you use it right.
Neither are poorly designed feats, as some have claimed, and the prestige class is amazing (Remember when it used to only be 9 levels of spells and a full BAB?). These new feats give your battle mage some new options that previous mages didn't have. But remember, it's still 3rd edition, and you're still a wizard/sorcerer. Paizo was only working with the fundamental limitations that TSR & WotC created with 3rd edition, and they've done an amazing job.
Of all the PrCs they've done for this concept, I think only the Abjurant Champion can even compare.
I'm not complaining that it isn't powerful enough; I actually haven't decided yet whether or not the capstone is overpowered.
It's just bad game design.
Even if your character winds up being very effective it's still frustrating and unfun.
I'm not complaining that it isn't powerful enough; I actually haven't decided yet whether or not the capstone is overpowered.
It's just bad game design.
Even if your character winds up being very effective it's still frustrating and unfun.
I disagree. I'm really excited to see the swift action finally being put to some use, other than the occasional high level quickened spell. Now the swift action is enough of a resource that players are literally thinking "crap, I don't have enough swift actions!" Games are about resource management, and this is just something else.
To me, that's great game design.
Its no big deal.. we are almost there. Next week folks... next week!
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It is easy for you to say 'almost there' 'cos I imagine you've already seen the finished product!
LET THEM EAT CAKE
;-)
I'm not complaining that it isn't powerful enough; I actually haven't decided yet whether or not the capstone is overpowered.
It's just bad game design.
Even if your character winds up being very effective it's still frustrating and unfun.
I disagree. I'm really excited to see the swift action finally being put to some use, other than the occasional high level quickened spell. Now the swift action is enough of a resource that players are literally thinking "crap, I don't have enough swift actions!" Games are about resource management, and this is just something else.
To me, that's great game design.
Good use of the varied action types would allow you to combine swift actions and standard actions in interesting ways.
However, in order to cast a spell with your standard action you have to use your swift action for armor training, which means you're using it almost every around. And you have NO way of casting a swift-action spell with a somatic component without suffering spell failure (no way exists in the system), including a quickened spell.
This makes the EK capstone a particularly bad choice because you can't use it if you've used Arcane Armor Training OR Arcane Strike earlier in the round. You should choose whether or not to use those feats (and which once, because you can't use both) at the beginning of the round. But since you have no way of knowing whether or not you're going to crit that round...
As a side-effect of this, there is NO way to use this powerful ability in armor without suffering spell failure (an archaic, clunky and frustrating mechanic), even if you've taken a feat to do so!
Again, it's not that a free quicken isn't a powerful class feature, it's that it renders unusable two feats which any EK can be expected to take. What is going to happen is that an optimal character simply won't wear armor because it isn't worth the swift-action cost, and if possible, they'll retrain to swap Arcane Armor Training for something they aren't afraid to use.
Feats with action costs are also unwieldy because they are mutually exclusive (which, as I've hinted, I think is bad). If two feats both take a full-round action (Overhand Chop and Whirlwind for example) a character is likely to take one but unlikely to take both, because they don't work together. Having multiple options for your actions is cool (that's part of why the EK is so much fun), but if you have to spend a feat for each option you're only going to pick one, which makes feats a bad vehicle for offering those sorts of mutually-exclusive options.
And if you have two "patch" feats for a given build (Arcane Strike, which is made to compensate high-level casters who make physical attacks, and Arcane Armor Training, which lets a fighter cast spells without suffering the arbitrary gish-killing "spell failure" rules that 3.P didn't see fit to get rid of), making them mutually exclusive is just silly. Yes, a character is unlikely to cast spells and make melee attacks in the same round, but if they DO (if they use quickened spells, position themselves for AoOs, or otherwise manage to blend combat with spellcasting) then they are doing their job in an awesome way and it's bad game design to punish them for it.
The balances issues are further aggrevated by the fact that quickened spells (the EXISTING option for swift-actions, against which all swift-action feats should have been balanced) is overwhelmingly powerful and will hedge BOTH these options out as soon as a character is powerful enough to employ them.
And then finally there's the fact (as others have mentioned) that spending an action to negate a penalty is simply an awkward and frustrating mechanic, which is likely to be overlooked, or worse, remembered at the last second (in an "Oh-crap-I'm-not-allowed-to-do-that-am-I" moment).
I do agree that a feat that reduces arcane spell failure as a swift action is not that useful.
However, in order to cast a spell with your standard action you have to use your swift action for armor training, which means you're using it almost every around. And you have NO way of casting a swift-action spell with a somatic component without suffering spell failure (no way exists in the system), including a quickened spell.
Well, nobody forbids your character to take Still Spell (an often underestimated Metamagic Feat) and keep a bunch of memorized Stilled spells (or using Metamagic Mastery if you have 8 levels of Universalist Wizard - or being a Sorcerer, who doesn't have to prepare metamagic spells in advance) for these occasions.
PFRPG Beta, page 95:
"Still Spell (Metamagic)
You can cast spells without moving.
Benefit: A stilled spell can be cast with no somatic components."
PFRPG Beta, page 109:
"Arcane Spell Failure: Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component."
Due to the fact that you can 'mix'n match' Metamagic feats, such a character can still use his 'Stilled whatsoever' AND loosen it with Spell Critical.
In this way, he doesn't have any Arcane Spell failure from his armor.
Plus, some spells don't have Somatic Component at all (very few, I admit it), so those spells can be cast even by a Wizard in Full Plate without having any Arcane Spell Failure (Dimension Door is one of those, for example - even if it cannot be used with Spell Critical, since it doesn't target unwilling creatures).
Just my 2c.
A well thought-out rebuttal.
You make good points, but honestly, your frustration seems to stem from the fact that you don't believe arcane spells should have spell failure. Having feats require the use of your swift action isn't a method of increasing bookkeeping on the player's part. In fact, it's as simple as "DM, since I can use Arcane Strike every round, just go ahead and assume that I'm using my swift action for it every turn. I'll let you know when I change my swift action to Arcane Armor Proficiency, ok?" And if you screw up, all your DM (or fellow player) has to do is remind you that you don't have a swift action anymore. Honest, that simple.
What the swift action feats REALLY seem to accomplish is that you can do X or Y, but not both without sacrificing a move/standard action. Others, like the Full-Round action feats do the same thing, but on an exclusive X or Y system.
The whole Arcane Armor Proficiency thing really isn't awful. In fact, it's great for a full mage who isn't interested in quicken spell, or uses it to lessen the failure of a shield she can quickly discard in battle when she wants to start popping off swift spells. While high level Eldritch Knights and Quicken mages can't utilize the feat to its full potential, it doesn't make it crap. The swift action feats (and now abilities) seem to be about balance, and casters are usually doing the most damage to the scales of balance.
So yeah, this is kinda a nerf to arcane casters, but these options didn't even exist in 3.5e, and casters rocked the pants off of any competing class. Basically, it's Paizo's way of letting you cast in armor while not actually giving you the ability, like a bard.
Of course, a 1 level dip into Spellsword from the Complete Warrior gives you the same thing that Arcane Armor Profiency offers with no tangible drawback (so long as you only dip 1), but a lot of people around here are core-only, so I see the issue.
take Still Spell (an often underestimated Metamagic Feat)
I was waiting for someone with a decent Wisdom score to post that! ;p Still Spell is always on my personal list of feats my arcane caster needs to consider.
Peace,
tfad
The problem with this build is that you will quickly realize that you're spells are way more potent than your melee ability, so you'll basically are a wizard who carries a sword with him. In my Savage Tide we had a Gish that ended up being really deadly and actually felt like a Gish. The reason he worked so well was in part because of the Abjurant Champion prestige class (with it and some other spells he managed to get his AC up around 50 by about level 15). He was also using wraith strike on a constant basis and channeling Arcane Strikes through his sword for whopping damage (which was broken as anything since even a dragon with a 50 AC has a touch AC of about 10).
|
|
I'm not complaining that it isn't powerful enough; I actually haven't decided yet whether or not the capstone is overpowered.
It's just bad game design.
Even if your character winds up being very effective it's still frustrating and unfun.
Why exactly?
Because you have to choose which ability you wish to use (just like every other class)?
I'm just not seeing a real problem here.
I'm not complaining that it isn't powerful enough; I actually haven't decided yet whether or not the capstone is overpowered.
It's just bad game design.
Even if your character winds up being very effective it's still frustrating and unfun.
Why exactly?
Because you have to choose which ability you wish to use (just like every other class)?
I'm just not seeing a real problem here.
The problem is that you don't know in advance whether you'll get a critical hit. So you can save your swift action hoping for a critical hit (and be disappointed much of the time), or you can use your swift action and just give up on the possibility of using your class feature (and be disappointed some of the time). Either way, you're clock-blocking yourself. (O.K., "clock-block" isn't a word, but you get my drift.)
Well Arcane strike also got a big nerf from 3.5 to Pathfinder.
Arcane Strike (well, that Arcane Strike) wasn't in 3.5. There was something that allowed you to sacrifice spell slots for power, but this is different.
Again it's a simple fix all. Just pull out those markers and change the rule. Make the training allow you to cast in light armor without any failure chance, but if you cast in anything heavier you need to spend your swift action to reduce the failure chance. (I'd personally reduce it by 25% not 10 because well 10 is lame.)
|
|
The problem is that you don't know in advance whether you'll get a critical hit. So you can save your swift action hoping for a critical hit (and be disappointed much of the time), or you can use your swift action and just give up on the possibility of using your class feature (and be disappointed some of the time). Either way, you're clock-blocking yourself. (O.K., "clock-block" isn't a word, but you get my drift.)
If you start in melee, and choose to perform full attack, or walk up to melee and perform a single attack, then you might get the chance, on a crit, of being allowed to cast a quickened spell that targets your opponent, at no metamagic cost.
If you don't crit, you still have the option of firing off any swift spells you know (possibly raised via metamagic, or via rod), which need not target the opponent.
You've no need to waste a swift slot, since you don't have to make that choice to use it, until you've seen the results of your attack rolls.
If you crit, you get to apply free metamagic.
If you don't, you have to use a higher slot, or a charge on your meta rod, as normal.
Unless, of course, the spell you had in mind had to be cast first, to cripple the opponent and tear their defences down, in which case, you made your choice. If you then crit, you miss out on the chance to perform a third action in that round.
The whole arcane spell failure is a non-issue, since if you really think that a 10% failure chance is too high (which is a valid opinion) and think a feat and swift actions are too precious to reduce it, then the answer is simple. Learn spells with no somatics, or prepare them using Still Spell. And don't wear armour. Wear bracers instead. That's what we did for 20 years of 1st and 2nd Edition, when fighter/wizards couldn't cast in armour* at all.
Seems to me some people are complaining of having more options than before.
|
All this non-optimization reminds me of those beautiful character cards from AD&D, 2nd Edition. Those characters weren't built to perfection. They weren't optimized for combat. They weren't "Uber", but they didn't have to be. They inspired the imagination; they helped me dream about distant places, strange worlds, worlds where physics worked differently than here because of a strange science known as magic. These characters weren't perfect. Their imperfections made them beautiful. They were flawed. A dark sorcerer riding a red dragon could probably kill them in one swoop.
But if they got away. If they survived that fatal encounter that destroyed their village, or their castle, or whatever, and found a sage wondering in the desert or a magical glowing sword that sealed their fate for the rest of their lives, or perhaps helped a prince establish a kingdom far, far away before he could return for his revenge, or otherwise face character development (I think I just felt a huge wave of nausea moving through power gamers everywhere.)... A character is not complete as a bunch of stats or uber-feats or superpowers, or the best spells in the game. A character is the beginning of a story, a long and beautiful one, if he is willing to face his own death, and the failure of pride, envy, and jealousy: all the petty emotions that force us to squabble among ourselves as we frequently do...
To me, that is the magic of this game. In 2nd Edition, this was a game of story-telling and magic, mysteries and fights with undead, vampires, dragons, orcs, or strange monsters from beyond. Survival sometimes meant running away from an encounter. You don't see that too often these days. Hopefully, though, with Pathfinder bringing back not only 3.5 but the same story-focused gaming that was present in 2nd Edition, we can see those beautiful dreams come back.
+10 ^-^
"Beautiful stories" and character development are largely independent of mechanics; they can be made using any rules, or none... so I'll focus strictly on mechanics here.
I understand Daron, Hydro, and Hogarth, and have to say I agree. That's my issue with the monk, too: he has two main abilities (fast movement and lots of attacks) that are mutually contradictory. The defense of this design is that it creates "interesting tactical situations" to force him to choose between them -- which is 100% true, and would be ideal design if either feature were at the peak of what's possible in that area. For example, if no one could cover ground in any manner like the monk, and if the monk could deal damage like a barbarian, then making him choose between the two is exactly what you'd want.
But he can't: there are any number of ways to outspeed and out-damage a monk. So if he has to choose, he's choosing between things he's almost certain be outclassed at. And that's poor design. In that case, allowing him to combine his abilities gives him a unique niche and allows him to do something that others can't do.
Same with the EldKt. He can't keep up with a full caster for spells, and he can't fight nearly as well as a dedicated fighter. He can't cast while armored like a cleric without preventing himself from doing one of his other second-best things. The way to make an eldritch knight unique is to ensure that he can take his "second-best" abilities and combine them: like channeling spells through his sword on a hit, or casting while armored and also use arcane strike. Or whatever.
Re: Capstone abilities: I'd leave this out of any discussion. Unless a character is hatched out of the egg at 20th level, they're unlikely to ever show up in actual play, and might as well not exist. A commoner with the 20th level capstone ability to enslave humanity is still just a commoner, because he'll most likely never reach that capstone before 99% of people get bored of the campaign and abandon it.
You've no need to waste a swift slot, since you don't have to make that choice to use it, until you've seen the results of your attack rolls.
If you crit, you get to apply free metamagic.
If you don't, you have to use a higher slot, or a charge on your meta rod, as normal.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Arcane Strike feat.
CEASE THIS SENSELESS ARGUING. ROAR. IT UPSETS MY STOMACH. ROAR.
Pathfinder version is much less powerful (but does not require you to expend a spell).
They don't have much in common. The name (not especially a unique idea) and the fact that it's something spellcasters can use to boost damage (which the name already alludes to)
It's not a nerf if it's not the same Feat at all.
I totally agree that iconics or preview characters don't need to (and aren't supposed to) be optimal.
However, I think the point which that poster was raising is that this character (a very standard gish)'s powers actively get in the way of eachother, and this indicates a problem with the underlying mechanics, and why wasn't this issue fixed since the Beta, and why furthermore does the EK's capstone work in a way that exacerbates the issue rather than making the abilities work well together like it's supposed to?
Seconded. I don't have a problem showing off unoptimized chaarcters (truthfully, I think the most powerful characters don't even look that tough on paper anyway) buts theres a difference between "Unoptimmized" and "Abilties getting in the way of each other".
You wouldn't show an iconic fighter with every physcial ability score as 8 and using his/her fighter bonus feats to take weapon focus for weapons he/she doesn't even use. Likewise, it's ironic that the Eldritch Knight Iconic cannot even use his capstone ability and a feat specifcally designed to let him cast in armour at the same time. I think I might be house-ruling that, as a swift action spell, it doesn't have components, and therfore not subject to ASF.
You can also make the Eldritch Knight into the ranged specialist. Swap that sword for a bow, and there you go! (Hey, it rhymes!) For some extra weirdness, swap those Fighter levels for Barbarian levels!
Yeah, and then you can buy a second bow painted red. It's painted red because it's an angry bow that you use only while raging.
|
|
You can also make the Eldritch Knight into the ranged specialist. Swap that sword for a bow, and there you go! (Hey, it rhymes!) For some extra weirdness, swap those Fighter levels for Barbarian levels!Yeah, and then you can buy a second bow painted red. It's painted red because it's an angry bow that you use only while raging.
And of course it will be a composite longbow set to your raging strength score, and could also be your arcane bond item.
*snip well-reasoned argument
You did a much better job of describing this than I did.
On Wizard Bonus spells and powers:
number of bonus spells. Whenever a wizard attains the listed
level, he can choose one spell from his school to prepare every
day as a bonus spell. Instead of gaining a spell of the listed
level, the wizard can instead choose a spell of a lower level,
which he can then prepare twice per day (except for 2nd level).
school of magic to focus on, and two other schools of magic
to ignore (called prohibited schools). Each arcane school grants a number of school powers
dependent upon the level of the wizard.
Seltyiel has all of his bonus spells for his level, however, the rules are not very clear on whether he actually should get these are not, as the description says 'wizard level' and not 'caster level'. The description for school powers says 'wizard level' and Seltyiel doesn't get new powers after his first few wizard levels, but he does get bonus spells despite the description not indicating caster level.
The bonus spell description didn't seem all that clear as to if you got the spells with caster level.
On Wizard Bonus spells and powers:
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
Seltyiel has all of his bonus spells for his level, however, the rules are not very clear on whether he actually should get these are not, as the description says 'wizard level' and not 'caster level'. The description for school powers says 'wizard level' and Seltyiel doesn't get new powers after his first few wizard levels, but he does get bonus spells despite the description not indicating caster level.
The bonus spell description didn't seem all that clear as to if you got the spells with caster level.
Right, so from what I remember correctly, in Beta you got what was basically 1/day spell like abilities that relied on Int and not Cha every other level, which represented your "bonus" spell for being a specialist (it actually worked very similarly to the Domain Wizard from the UA). Then in final they went back to the 3.5 version of specialists, where you get a bonus slot for any spell of that school.
Right, so from what I remember correctly, in Beta you got what was basically 1/day spell like abilities that relied on Int and not Cha every other level, which represented your "bonus" spell for being a specialist (it actually worked very similarly to the Domain Wizard from the UA). Then in final they went back to the 3.5 version of specialists, where you get a bonus slot for any spell of that school.
Ah, yes. I see. So in Beta you'd get the bonus spells based on wizard level and they'd increase per day based on caster level.
Something the caster can do to boost the melee power of his weapons, I would say the same thing only nerfed (or as close to it as they can get since Complete Warrior is not open source).
They work differently.
I could say Dodge is a nerfed version of Combat Expertise, since both increase my AC. :P