|
Also, hexblades and duskblades, specifically.
I like hexblades a lot, but they're not really what I'm asking for. I'm way into Paizo putting together such a class for Pathfinder, but what I'm asking for is definitely more similar to the duskblade (which nearly nails the concept for me, and perfectly nails it after a few slight home-rules). The hexblade is also way below the power level bar that Pathfinder has set.
Mostly when people mention rangers and paladins, I think they're referencing the existence of limited spellcasting progressions side-by-side BABs, not the actual mechanics that accompany those classes. Again, I like hexblades a lot, but they don't play the way I want my arcane warrior to play.
Another thing that got lost from my epic-length post was that I asked if anybody would be willing to put together a build for me using all Paizo-published Pathfinder material that can closely replicate a duskblade mechanically, somewhere around levels 5 to 10 (my favourite tier of play). If it can be done, I'll quite happily bow out of the bulk of these conversations. I just don't think it can be done with existing material, which is why I'd like Paizo to address the niche with a base class (what I feel to be the cleanest solution). Again, I always prefer more options to fewer, but in this case, I really just don't the concept is possible at all without third party, 3.5, or homebrew material.
Bottom line: this system is about options, and having more ways to accomplish similar concepts is a blessing, not a curse. The only "shoulds" in Pathfinder have to do with people being able to do what they want, how they want.
---but in the end I still want Paizo itself to be responsible for publishing as many books as they can, because the quality of their products is so high, and because nothing they don't publish is legal for the game's organized play, which may not be a consideration for everybody, but is a consideration for a great many.
Well said, I agree.
Now, take this to it's next conclusion, why do you think multi-classing has become less desirable, is it because, maybe multi-classing was a problematic system? Why do you think both Paizo's and WOTC have limited multi-classing, remember they are game designers, it's what they do for a living. Now, do you think the game is as a whole what you though it was, or is it a very different system, and why is that?Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.
Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.
That seems like a Red herring. So you say multi classing is messed up and not working like it should? Then why does everyone seem to think WoTC's multi classing was over powered for non casters, and underpowered for caster?
Now it just seems like a bad idea all around, which seems like what you want to say, so then we really do need a base class.
Now, take this to it's next conclusion, why do you think multi-classing has become less desirable, is it because, maybe multi-classing was a problematic system? Why do you think both Paizo's and WOTC have limited multi-classing, remember they are game designers, it's what they do for a living. Now, do you think the game is as a whole what you though it was, or is it a very different system, and why is that?Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.
Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.
That seems like a Red herring. So you say multi classing is messed up and not working like it should? Then why does everyone seem to think WoTC's multi classing was over powered for non casters, and underpowered for caster?
Now it just seems like a bad idea all around, which seems like what you want to say, so then we really do need a base class.
I don't see your logic, if this was true then WOTC would never have toned done multi-classing in 4e, and would never add the sword mage class, but that's what they did. I'm missing your point.
Anyway, this is really starting to get out of hand, more options are good, but everyone has their preferred options. All I was showing was that the system is perfectly playable, and perhaps even better without multi-classing, I can't stop you from using the system, but I can suggest that you try not using and see the results. On that note, I think I going to back of for this topic a while, it's stating to give me a bit of a headache.
Remember, I can't force you to stop playing the game, or to stop playing the way you like, I can only make suggestions to improve your experience, and point out that both WOTC and Paizo's seem to be moving that direction.
Good gaming everyone.
Now, take this to it's next conclusion, why do you think multi-classing has become less desirable, is it because, maybe multi-classing was a problematic system? Why do you think both Paizo's and WOTC have limited multi-classing, remember they are game designers, it's what they do for a living. Now, do you think the game is as a whole what you though it was, or is it a very different system, and why is that?Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.
Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.
That seems like a Red herring. So you say multi classing is messed up and not working like it should? Then why does everyone seem to think WoTC's multi classing was over powered for non casters, and underpowered for caster?
Now it just seems like a bad idea all around, which seems like what you want to say, so then we really do need a base class.
speaking from 3.5
Casters who multiclassed lost thier one big feature when they did, and got little benefit in return
non casters had "less" to lose when dipping 2 or so levels in another class. and usually came out ahead. not only in concept but power. as cherry picking was always better for he who had no big scaling class abilities.
but some of the non caster abilties were assigned a gold piece value, such as evasion, altertness and a couple other feats or class features. some casters had thier abilities affected by this too. such as the unseen seer capstone. meaning class features and feats "Can" be assigned a gold piece value. turning gold into GURPS points.
Now, take this to it's next conclusion, why do you think multi-classing has become less desirable, is it because, maybe multi-classing was a problematic system? Why do you think both Paizo's and WOTC have limited multi-classing, remember they are game designers, it's what they do for a living. Now, do you think the game is as a whole what you though it was, or is it a very different system, and why is that?Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.
Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.
That seems like a Red herring. So you say multi classing is messed up and not working like it should? Then why does everyone seem to think WoTC's multi classing was over powered for non casters, and underpowered for caster?
Now it just seems like a bad idea all around, which seems like what you want to say, so then we really do need a base class.
I don't see your logic, if this was true then WOTC would never have toned done multi-classing in 4e, and would never add the sword mage class, but that's what they did. I'm missing your point.
Anyway, this is really starting to get out of hand, more options are good, but everyone has their preferred options. All I was showing was that the system is perfectly playable,...
What I am trying to say is I am missing your point.
If paizo ever does a psionics hand book then we would prolly get a psychic warrior which is pretty close to being a fighter mage with fighter bonus feats 6 levels of powers and had plenty of psionic feats to choose from.
What does an eldritch knight get that makes it so special that you can't call yourself and Eldritch Knight before level 7. Ok so your BA is a little low to be concidered a melee class for adventures that end at level 5-8 but other classes wouldn't be that far ahead of you at that low level either. It wouldn't be until level 16 anyway that you would get the EK's capstone and if you wanted to make the EK type class as a core class then the capstone would prolly be at level 20 just like the other core classes. I am all for new class option, I just don't see what the huge deal is. Unless you are playing under PFS or your DM is really strict play a 3.5 class which was why PF was made reverse compatable in the first place.
I actualy don't get why so many adventures end at such low levels for people. I would be very annoyed even if I wanted to play a strait rogue or wizard because I would never reach my character concept. To get all the feats or what ever I would need for any concept to be fleshed out I would like to play the class at least to 12 and preferably to 16.
Your BAB is low, your HP is low, you stop getting scaling melee features, and you're only getting non-level-appropriate spells and working through a doldrum of new toys that are meant for level 1 characters.The secret of the EK, the real problem, is that it's not a very good melee character at any level. If you really want to be a tougher guy who casts spells, it works just fine, but it's not a very good melee character because arcane self-buffs are not terribly action-efficient or terribly powerful.
By the time you get the arcane self-buffs which are worth using, you're such a good straight wizard that you're better off just casting spells exclusively. If you drop wizard levels early on for martial levels, then you won't get the proper buffs until very high (17+ levels) if at all.
The killer of the EK is that it's too good of a wizard, on top of being not good enough of a frontliner.
I would have to agree that is the problem with the EK prestige class, but making the EK into a strait core class would not fix that. I was just saying if you wanted to play an EK there really isn't much difference between a level 4 wizard, level 1 fighter and what would be a level 5 EK core class.
The 1 fighter 4 wizard would have 24HP+con+4 for favored class with a BA of 3 and 2nd level spells.
A level 5 EK core class would have 26HP+con+5 for favored class with a BA of 3 and 2nd level spells.
So they would be very similar at low levels. Now if you don't like the EK as a hybrid PC then that has nothing to do with my post.
Your BAB is low, your HP is low, you stop getting scaling melee features, and you're only getting non-level-appropriate spells and working through a doldrum of new toys that are meant for level 1 characters.The secret of the EK, the real problem, is that it's not a very good melee character at any level. If you really want to be a tougher guy who casts spells, it works just fine, but it's not a very good melee character because arcane self-buffs are not terribly action-efficient or terribly powerful.
By the time you get the arcane self-buffs which are worth using, you're such a good straight wizard that you're better off just casting spells exclusively. If you drop wizard levels early on for martial levels, then you won't get the proper buffs until very high (17+ levels) if at all.
The killer of the EK is that it's too good of a wizard, on top of being not good enough of a frontliner.
I would have to agree that is the problem with the EK prestige class, but making the EK into a strait core class would not fix that. I was just saying if you wanted to play an EK there really isn't much difference between a level 4 wizard, level 1 fighter and what would be a level 5 EK core class.
The 1 fighter 4 wizard would have 24HP+con+4 for favored class with a BA of 3 and 2nd level spells.
A level 5 EK core class would have 26HP+con+5 for favored class with a BA of 3 and 2nd level spells.
So they would be very similar at low levels. Now if you don't like the EK as a hybrid PC then that has nothing to do with my post.
The biggest problem with the EK Prestige class is the list of entry requirements that automatically force you to be caster-heavy on the levels. The shortest route into that PrC is 1 Martial Class/5 Wizard or 1Martial Class/6 Sorcerer. By the time you qualify for the class, your character doesn't feel very much like a FIGHTER/Mage, it feels more like a Wizard who can use a larger variety of weapons.
If Paizo doesn't want to go the route of publishing some sort of Arcane Warrior base class, I think they could acutally just publish an errata for the Eldritch Knight prerequisites so that you can meet them as a 3 Martial/3 Caster character. This would give a lot of people who are looking for the old balanced 1st and 2nd Edition Fighter/Mage feel a great option.
The requirements for the Arcane Archer have the opposite problem, where they pretty much require you to be much more martial-heavy on base classes to qualify.
I actually assumed at level 1 and 10 the EK class didn't up his spell casting so that at level 20 he would have 18 levels of wizard spells, similar to if someone actual level the class as a prestige class and was 1 fighter 9 wizard and 10 EK 3/4 BA d8 hp.
So then are you looking for something like a pally that uses a few arcane spells (4 levels) that has some magical innate attack similar to smite evil? It seems to me if Paizo made something like this we would still have people asking for an Arcane Warrior type because it still wouldn't fit what people would think it should be.
Also there are more than 1 fifth man classes that don't fit in quite well like the druid or the bard or the monk.
I think the Psychic Warrior did a fine job taking over the roll of the fighter in the adventures I ran with him. But then the Psychic Warrior is my idea (with a few changes) of how I would like my Arcane Warrior made.
Very fair point Urizen :-)
I have a DM (who runs Dark Heresy now so splatbooks are not an issue) that would disallow all splatbooks except in limited circumstances. In some cases though it worth saying to the DM hey I just want to use this one feat from this one book to make my charcater more effective. Presented that way I think many DM's would be ok with it.
Spoiler:A bit off topic but I really enjoy Dark Heresy. I have never really done more than dip my toe into Sci-Fi RPing before this either. We only play every other month so the GM probably levels us too quick but the character options and plots I have played through so far have been a blast.
/threadjack