But the point is that balanced classes will mostly all have ~95% chance to hit on that first attack, because they'll either get +5 to hit back from class abilities or won't be rolling to hit. If your point is that -5 to hit is a significant penalty, I don't think anyone here is really going to disagree with you.People, if you want to decry the power of a Full BAB, yuo have to know what you are comparing it to.
Do the Math.
So, you're arguing that you want to get rid of a 'significant penalty', and still don't think full BAB is important?
Make up your mind! :)
I have my doubts on that 95% to hit, too, for Medium BAB. A 40 AC is not unreasonable at level 20, and +20 to hit is near the top of what most classes can somehow expect to get. If we're talking spells buffed beyond that, then you should balance that out with buff spells on the enemy, and it should cancel.
==Aelryinth
|
Yeah, in my opinion, the Bard as Gish works about as well as the Monk/Wizard as Gish; there's some potential and coverage, but too much is spent on other things.
Also, Bards fight by walking into dungeons and singing at people: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0128.html
The Gish is a popular concept for the same reason fighters and wizards are popular: they are iconic. Gandalf goes toe-to-toe with the Balrog, swinging a staff in one hand and a sword in the other. Elves have been doing the Blade Dancer thing since second edition. Clerics are basically Divine Gishs, which is part of the problem "priest" style classes runs into, as the spells aren't as good.
I started the thread because I didn't see any threads about it, and I was looking for ideas. I've got the basic mechanics, but I'm not sure what works and what doesn't. For instance, does Arcane Power pay off for EKs? for DDs? What should the wizard EK prepare? What are good spells for the DD? I don't know these things, and while I don't believe in min-maxing, I want a character that actually works.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0397.html
No, because for melee classes, BAB is also number of attacks, and when you get them.
If you are going to be stuck the rest of your life with SA's in combat, then just raw TH suffices. It's the War Hulk approach to damage. One huge attack, always hits. That's fine, if its balanced against the other approaches.
If you're going to be dealing out full attacks, those iteratives become important.
Your argument is why Gish builds aim for that +16. They don't want the high TH...they buff Str for that. They want the 4th attack. Attacks are important! Whole builds become lousy when you don't get those extra attacks, and your base TH falls behind. It's why people poo-poo the EK...it falls behind on both BAB and Spellcaster level...unacceptable, yet perfectly balanced. People want both.
I will note the Enhancement 'Skilled' exists, which gives you a Medium BAB vs. your level. It's recommended for War Hulks, as it gives them basically up to +7 to hit, and usually 3 attacks. And all it does is supply BAB.
==========
Your concept of a Gish needs clarifying, especially the 'stab with magic' part.
It seems as if you are saying that your Gish needs almost no spells, but he wants SPELL SLOTs...things to spend on attacks that his class abilities give him. I.e. I spend a 4th level slot to give this attack +12 dmg! type things.
==Aelryinth
In such a case, your spell list should be slim to none, the arcane energy itself is what you using to sub for lack of feats/class abilities that deal dmg in melee combat.
==Aelryinth
|
I like base classes that aren't just multi-class wannabes.Like the paladin and ranger and bard, amirite?
They are all classes in their own rights and have a set classic part of the party. There is no reason whatsoever that another class cannot fight the stereotypical warrior-mage without needing to be a multiclass or Prestige class.
As it stands, Duskblades can do tremendous amounts of damage per attack. They can take a ranged or touch attack spell and stack it on top of weapon damage...
Actually, duskblades can't stack ranged spells on top of weapon damage.
Arcane Channeling: Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack... At 13th level, you can cast any touch spell you know as part of a full attack action, and the spell affects each target you hit in melee combat that round."
The spells the duskblade can use Arcane Channeling with is limited to 1st-chill touch, shocking grasp, 2nd-ghoul touch, touch of idiocy, 3rd-dispelling touch, vampiric touch. I'm pretty sure that's about it for touch spells (not ranged touch) on the duskblade list.
This limitation is why I almost never played a straight duskblade. I almost always took duskblade for 5 levels, then spellsword (Complete Warrior) for 4 levels to get Channel Spell (which can be used with any spell, although a limited number of times per day), then switched back to duskblade for 8 more levels to get Arcane Channeling (full attack). I always took Arcane Strike, as well (even though I usually couldn't until 12th character level).
<bards as warrior/mages>
A bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X only gives up 2 from BAB (which is easily regained with the 2nd level bard spell heroism) and two levels of casting ability (which can be partially mitigated with the trait Magical Knack, allowing the character to retain full CL, although spell progression still lags). Granted, the bard list has few damaging spells, but there are quite a few battlefield control and buff/debuff choices. PF RPG's Arcane Strike (+1 damage, with an additional +1 per 5 caster levels), however can help.
a ranged touch spell is still a touch spell, a touch is just anything that targets touch armor class. so rays and orbs work too. however i would love to see the ability to channel debuffs too.
a ranged touch spell is still a touch spell, a touch is just anything that targets touch armor class. so rays and orbs work too. however i would love to see the ability to channel debuffs too.
No, a ranged touch spell attacks touch AC at range, it is not a "touch spell." See pg. 314 of the 3.5 PHB: "touch spell: A spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks."
The duskblade can channel dispelling touch and the spellsword can channel any spell (but a limited number of times per day). A duskblade/spellsword can do both.
a ranged touch spell is still a touch spell, a touch is just anything that targets touch armor class. so rays and orbs work too. however i would love to see the ability to channel debuffs too.No, a ranged touch spell attacks touch AC at range, it is not a "touch spell." See pg. 314 of the 3.5 PHB: "touch spell: A spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks."
but what if that touch was from a distance, itdidn't specify that it had to be your fingers, a falcon familiar or a spectral hand spell effectively turns your touch into a ranged touch, why not count the reverse?. otherwise, a duskblades spell list is worthless. but it only adds a small number of options. but enough to multiply channel options by 1.25.
but what if that touch was from a distance, itdidn't specify that it had to be your fingers, a falcon familiar or a spectral hand spell effectively turns your touch into a ranged touch, why not count the reverse?. otherwise, a duskblades spell list is worthless. but it only adds a small number of options. but enough to multiply channel options by 1.25.Ranged touch spells are a separate listing on that same list, and IIRC this has been covered in the PHB2 FAQ. Duskblades do just fine without channeling ranged touch spells.
guess i must have been in a group that fudged that ruling. i've seen dukblades channeling scorching rays and acidic splatters. (the feat)
guess i must have been in a group that fudged that ruling. i've seen dukblades channeling scorching rays and acidic splatters. (the feat)To be honest, it's not that OP to do that. I'd slightly question allowing someone to channel all three rays of a higher-level Scorching Ray, but I suspect it's not that ridiculous at that level.
it's really nothing special, as 75% of your foes by then will be immune to or resistant to fire. or you ahnihallate a single troll. oh yay, 14 damage a ray, even fire resistance 5 is taking a huge chunk out of the benefit.
it's really nothing special, as 75% of your foes by then will be immune to or resistant to fire. or you ahnihallate a single troll. oh yay, 14 damage a ray, even fire resistance 5 is taking a huge chunk out of the benefit.guess i must have been in a group that fudged that ruling. i've seen dukblades channeling scorching rays and acidic splatters. (the feat)To be honest, it's not that OP to do that. I'd slightly question allowing someone to channel all three rays of a higher-level Scorching Ray, but I suspect it's not that ridiculous at that level.
At low levels, it's not overpowered. However, being able to channel ray of exhaustion (3rd level duskblade spell), enervation (4th level duskblade spell)*, disintegrate (5th level duskblade spell)*, or polar ray (5th level duskblade spell)* into weapon attacks, with the only limit being the number of spell slots available, can be a bit much (IMO).
*-These spells, under that interpretation, can automatically affect multiple targets in a round using Arcane Channeling (full attack).
it's really nothing special, as 75% of your foes by then will be immune to or resistant to fire. or you ahnihallate a single troll. oh yay, 14 damage a ray, even fire resistance 5 is taking a huge chunk out of the benefit.guess i must have been in a group that fudged that ruling. i've seen dukblades channeling scorching rays and acidic splatters. (the feat)To be honest, it's not that OP to do that. I'd slightly question allowing someone to channel all three rays of a higher-level Scorching Ray, but I suspect it's not that ridiculous at that level.At low levels, it's not overpowered. However, being able to channel ray of exhaustion (3rd level duskblade spell), enervation (4th level duskblade spell)*, disintegrate (5th level duskblade spell)*, or polar ray (5th level duskblade spell)* into weapon attacks, with the only limit being the number of spell slots available, can be a bit much (IMO).
*-These spells, under that interpretation, can automatically affect multiple targets in a round using Arcane Channeling (full attack).
Yeah the full attack arcane channeling is where the class lost me and where it became potentially overpowered.
If I were to update this class to 3.P, which I've already begun to in my head, I would reword it to be something like "when making a full attack you may give up one of your attacks to channel a spell into your attack (see Arcane Channeling). This spell may be of a level up to the base attack bonus of the iterative attack you gave up." That way you can still channel when making a full attack so your main class gimmick isn't obviated by BAB progression, but you have to give something up. The idea of the spell affecting every target you hit is absurd.
Try the class first. The nastiest spell you can channel is Vampiric Touch, so on a limited basis you're doing about as much damage as sneak attack.Yeah the full attack arcane channeling is where the class lost me and where it became potentially overpowered.
If I were to update this class to 3.P, which I've already begun to in my head, I would reword it to be something like "when making a full attack you may give up one of your attacks to channel a spell into your attack (see Arcane Channeling). This spell may be of a level up to the base attack bonus of the iterative attack you gave up." That way you can still channel when making a full attack so your main class gimmick isn't obviated by BAB progression, but you have to give something up. The idea of the spell affecting every target you hit is absurd.
True, but you'd also gaining that amount as temporary hit points which is HUGE if you're using it consistently. Makes up for a lesser HD really. Also you don't have to worry about position like a rogue. I have tried the class for the record :) and it's probably my favorite class in the game there's just a few things about it I thought could do better.
It always boggles me that there's such a strong desire for a fighter/wizard type character (I HATE the word gish, btw... pet peeve of mine), but at the same time there's such a low opinion of the bard.
The bard is pretty much the best option outside of the Eldritch Knight for the fighter/wizard route. The upcoming Advanced Player's Guide will hopefully help to drive this fact home a bit more, with several new bard spells that work well with the fact that he's basically a weapon-wielding armor-wearing spellcaster... something that 3.5's lazy bard spell selection didn't encourage and unfortunately got grandfathered in to PFRPG.
But if you want to play the character that's TWO main characters in one (the super bad-ass fighter and the hard-core explosive wizard), one thing to keep in mind is that the game is built with checks and balances for a purpose. It's hard to do that kind of character for a reason.
Actually, I would like to see a class that can be similar to the bard, but prefer a full attack type, that actually has a spell list that reflects his combat style. Why create the ability to channel spells, which is cool, when you could just have some spells where the somantic component is a melee strike, as well as the weapon is a focus. I found the Duskblade close, but somewhat lacking. Lets face it, most of the spells, not all, but most are rightly geared to the wizard. I don't think anybody as effectively approached the class concept from a fighting style point of view. He doesn't need to be a totally kick butt spellcaster. He doesn't need to be a kick butt fighter, from the traditional sense. He does need to equal the melee combatants when using his mage & blade fighting style.
I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but the "Book of Experimental Might" has an interesting arcane warrior types called the runeblade. The class is limited to how many runes are known and how many can be active at one time. Most runes augment the runeblade's combat abilities by adding energy damage to attacks, but others assist healing and allow from summoning monsters to assist in crowd control.
Overall, it provides a cool alternative to the spellcasting fighter and works well for viking-style characters.
it's really nothing special, as 75% of your foes by then will be immune to or resistant to fire. or you ahnihallate a single troll. oh yay, 14 damage a ray, even fire resistance 5 is taking a huge chunk out of the benefit.guess i must have been in a group that fudged that ruling. i've seen dukblades channeling scorching rays and acidic splatters. (the feat)To be honest, it's not that OP to do that. I'd slightly question allowing someone to channel all three rays of a higher-level Scorching Ray, but I suspect it's not that ridiculous at that level.At low levels, it's not overpowered. However, being able to channel ray of exhaustion (3rd level duskblade spell), enervation (4th level duskblade spell)*, disintegrate (5th level duskblade spell)*, or polar ray (5th level duskblade spell)* into weapon attacks, with the only limit being the number of spell slots available, can be a bit much (IMO).
*-These spells, under that interpretation, can automatically affect multiple targets in a round using Arcane Channeling (full attack).
Hate to say it, but by the rules as written, the Duskblade can NOT channel those spells. He can only channel TOUCH spells. Not ranged touch, but actual touch.
Compliments of KaeYoss:BAB: 1 (barbarian) + 2 (abjurer) +10 (eldritch knight) = 13. Not as good as a full-fledged fighter, but better than a cleric or rogue.
HP: 1d12 (full) + 5d6 + 10d10. On average, that's 84,5 plus con bonuses. A full-fledged fighter would have 92,5, a full-fledged cleric 75,5 so again, his HP are better than a cleric's or rogue's, while not quite as good as a fighter's.
How's that character qualifying for EK at level 3?
How's that character qualifying for EK at level 3?
Compliments of KaeYoss:BAB: 1 (barbarian) + 2 (abjurer) +10 (eldritch knight) = 13. Not as good as a full-fledged fighter, but better than a cleric or rogue.
HP: 1d12 (full) + 5d6 + 10d10. On average, that's 84,5 plus con bonuses. A full-fledged fighter would have 92,5, a full-fledged cleric 75,5 so again, his HP are better than a cleric's or rogue's, while not quite as good as a fighter's.
He's saying that the 1 BAB from 1 lvl of Bbn and 2 BAB from 5 lvls of Abj qualify him for EK, and a Bbn1/Abj5/Ek10 has 13 BAB 3 behind a straight melee but 1 ahead of a medium BAB progressing class.
I too was confused for a moment when reading this. He didn't mean levels he meant BAB derived from levels.
How's that character qualifying for EK at level 3?
Compliments of KaeYoss:BAB: 1 (barbarian) + 2 (abjurer) +10 (eldritch knight) = 13. Not as good as a full-fledged fighter, but better than a cleric or rogue.
HP: 1d12 (full) + 5d6 + 10d10. On average, that's 84,5 plus con bonuses. A full-fledged fighter would have 92,5, a full-fledged cleric 75,5 so again, his HP are better than a cleric's or rogue's, while not quite as good as a fighter's.
He's saying that the 1 BAB from 1 lvl of Bbn and 2 BAB from 5 lvls of Abj qualify him for EK, and a Bbn1/Abj5/Ek10 has 13 BAB 3 behind a straight melee but 1 ahead of a medium BAB progressing class.
I too was confused for a moment when reading this. He didn't mean levels he meant BAB derived from levels.
Gotcha, the argument makes more sense now.
|
I disagree. But then, I'm not scared of UMD. :)
Totally. Bards generally have high Cha and get Use Magic Device as a class skill, and in my experience tend to use this skill more than anyone else. Every type of wand and scroll is accessible.
Rather than "gish," I prefer "Jedi" or "Sith".
Does nobody like the psychic warrior (Expanded Psionics) or swordsage (Tome of Battle)?
Rather than "gish," I prefer "Jedi" or "Sith".
Does nobody like the psychic warrior (Expanded Psionics) or swordsage (Tome of Battle)?
I actually don't mind the psychic warrior, but it's probably an issue of Vancian casting vs Power Points here and for others, I think just about anything from ToB:BO9S gets called out as a precursor to 4E, which some may pass on. Semantics, I suppose.
Does nobody like the psychic warrior (Expanded Psionics) or swordsage (Tome of Battle)?The psychic warrior is, well, psychic. It's not just the flavor or the power point system (although those are concerns), but also the fact that it fights like a cleric. A psywar puts his buff face on then wades into combat. It's a good example of how to adapt the cleric schtick to a pure melee role (few utility powers, and a pool of a essentially psywar-only psychic feats for interesting class features), but it doesn't feel terribly arcane.
I don't want to sound contradictory, but just wanted to put my 2cp in since I've also played a PsyWar extensively. Yes a PsyWar can feel cleric-ey but a lot of its main buffs you can do as a swift action through augmentations, and a lot of decent powers are built as swift actions to begin with. Also the Psionic Weapon feat feels a lot like the sort of "omg extra dice" that we get with Duskblade for example.
Just saying that, optimized, the playstyle is very similar, but it takes the right feat/power selection and a lot of action juggling. I'd like something that feels much the same but operates properly out of the box.
|
I know it's been said before but until something better comes out then I would throw my hat behind either the Cleric or the Druid. I know it's not exactly what you're looking for in turns of offensive abilities but some DO show up through Domains, not just their normal spell list. It gives a bit more bite to them. In either case the Cleric would likely hold better doing this with their offensive BUFFS they could do to help the fact they dont have a full BAB. Druids would have to be rocking some DEX to make up for the lighter armor.
Another build ... and just go with me here ... would be a Fighter/Rogue/Duelist who wields a rapier in one hand and a wand in the other hand, shooting fireballs or whatever. Given the Duelist's impressive damage output and AC capabilities, they could push the front line just fine.
An option that hasn't been thrown out yet as far as I've read is the arcane trickster. It's not fighter/mage but rogue/mage i know, but most fighter/mages (I am NOT hopping on this "Gish" bandwagon) are going to have a melee weakness anyway for having said spell capabilities. An arcane trickster could still keep you in melee, backstabbing the oponent and flanking them to push out the heavy damage from sneak attack. In my opinion I'd say an arcane trickster would make a better fighter/mage then a bard would (as of now). Their HP is in the toilet but some constitution along with mirror image they might be ok. At least as well off as a rogue in 3.5 used to be considering they only had a d6 hp too.