Yes, ball dropped, if only because of the entry requirements that force you to be a mage who kinda sorta eventually learns to use a martial weapon functionally about halfway through your career.
The lack of interesting class features only adds insult to the injury, leaving a gaping whole that could have been filled with something very flavorful and fun.
I wouldn't call the wizard lacking as the familiar has been beefed up (arcane bond more generally), and it also has spell school powers - not really listed in the description itself, though since level availability depends on specialist or not. It would make for a muddy entry, but those spell school powers are pretty darn cool overall ...
Add to that the most offensive/powerful spell suite and infinite spell-book capacity (in theory if not practice) and yeah ... they do NOT get to claim "lacking" at all, IMO.
In their case, however, it's just not in the stat block(?) or whatever you want to call the class breakdown grids.
To be fair, the ball was dropped on all the PrCs but the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.Now this sounds interesting ... could you elaborate a bit?
Only the Dragon Disciple and Assassin were really updated. Like the Monk, the rest of the PrCs got left with what abilities they had. And considering those PrCs were already pretty bad and they wern't updated, the intent seems to have been to shaft the PrCs in order to discourage their use.
By that logic the wizard is lacking, as it has no real class features of its own.
What The Speaker in Dreams said.
I just don't understand why anyone can believe that a Prestige class that gets the wizard's primary class feature (spells) and an additional +20 hit points (on average), and additional +5 to hit, and more options on what to use the feats on can be lacking instead.If the wizard is good, then how can the guy who does the same stuff and then some not be?
I'm not arguing balance or anything along those lines. The Pathfinder Eldritch Knight is pretty balanced as a whole, though the character has to go through a pretty rough dip at the middle levels of the game, and getting into the PrC sort of sucks for anyone who envisions their Eldritch Knight as a little less Eldritch and a little more Knightly.
I just feel that the class could have been so much more than how it ended up. As it stands now, you pretty much end up with a straight Wizard who trades 2-3 Caster Levels for 2Hp/level and +5 BAB total. /Yawn
|
I think part of the issue here is that your comparison of just the prestige classes isn't a good basis for judging what the classes can do. Each one builds off of the strengths of the core classes that make it up.
@ Moro
I see a lot of people want to take mage classes first, then fighter. When I shoot for Eldritch Knight I usually start as a fighter in PF, then go mage. Helps survivability immensely at low levels.
I also kind of like the idea of the Paladin-Sorc (with celestial bloodline) above, that could be a load of fun.
1. Eldritch Knight, as a concept of a melee/arcanist class, does not work. But that's not so much a fault of Paizo as it is a fault of 3.5 ed multiclass system.
2. Having said that, the PrC is quite OK for what it is. You get full BAB and (almost) full spellcasting progression, what else does one need ?
1. A capstone that doesn't make the feats you took to get there useless because you still want a chance to use them. Such as Arcane Strike and Arcane Armor Training.
P.S. It also seems like despite the arcane armor training and arcane strike, they don't like the idea of an actual melee/caster class, or even PRC as it may seem.
Do you really want the best of both worlds? You continue advancing in whatever spellcasting class you were in before, and in addition you get d10 hit points and a full BaB. That's huge.No, it isn't. That's the real failing of the PrC. It's better than it was in 3.5, but that doesn't make it good or desirable.
Also add in that you do not get any of the school/bloodline abilities or the melee class abilities in the progression.
P.S. I would love the PRC myself if they had just made the capestone an automatic thing X amount /day.
Part of the reason the class may be vanilla is that they want it to be flexible enough to account for multiple concepts. There are feats in Pathfinder that reduce the chance of spell failure for wearing armor. Choose those, take more fighter levels, and the class starts looking closer to knight as opposed to a wizard who trades away 2 caster levels for a higher BAB and extra HP.
While I think they could have reduced the requirements a little bit (maybe only second levels spells and all martial weapons)the point is that the more flavor you add to what is supposed to be a generic class concept (the fighter/mage) the less ideas it is capable of supporting. As it stands now, the EK can pull off most concepts. Just choose the right feats, the right number of martial as opposed to caster levels, and the proper spells.
Once someone get the not so bright idea to make a more focused version, we won't see people taking it instead of the EK, we will see them taking it in ADDITION to it. The thought of a character at level 20 who has a +18 BAB and casts as an 18th level wizard doesn't sound balanced to me.
You know what? THIS response has probably been the most helpful to me so far. It's getting into the "why" of things vs. just ... side-stepping the reasoning behind the construction. As a "do it all" thing ... I can see that. It almost forces the lack-luster appearance of the class (and that's what initially grabbed my attention).
Thanks for this ... it really does help a bit. I'm not a fan of that design choice, but this is really insightful to me, so thank you for that.
@ the comment that comparing PrC to PrC design-wise not being useful: what the heck are you smoking??? That's like saying class balances are irrelevant because, you know, it's a totally different class. That comment just makes no sense at all. Of COURSE you look at other classes/PrC's to compare them and look at how they're constructed and engineered and attempted to be balanced against each other ...
To be fair, the ball was dropped on all the PrCs but the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.Now this sounds interesting ... could you elaborate a bit?
I'm gonna guess no.
I'm gonna guess no.To be fair, the ball was dropped on all the PrCs but the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.Now this sounds interesting ... could you elaborate a bit?
If you bothered to read before posting, you would have noticed I answered some 11 hours ago
Part of the reason the class may be vanilla is that they want it to be flexible enough to account for multiple concepts.
I have to admit I hadn't really thought of it from that angle, and it would make sense...except that Paizo took the majority of the other PrCs and all of the base classes and gave them fun and interesting features that progress as the character grows in power, and somehow didn't manage to stick all of those classes into any sort of roleplaying straightjacket.
There are feats in Pathfinder that reduce the chance of spell failure for wearing armor. Choose those, take more fighter levels, and the class starts looking closer to knight as opposed to a wizard who trades away 2 caster levels for a higher BAB and extra HP.
Having to sack your feat slots to make your Fighter/Mage an actual Fighter/Mage is bad design. The Feats are supposed to add to the character, not necessarily define it.
While I think they could have reduced the requirements a little bit (maybe only second levels spells and all martial weapons)the point is that the more flavor you add to what is supposed to be a generic class concept (the fighter/mage) the less ideas it is capable of supporting. As it stands now, the EK can pull off most concepts. Just choose the right feats, the right number of martial as opposed to caster levels, and the proper spells.
In theory this is how it should work, and the rearranging of the entry requirements is something I've suggested before. Even houseruled to work in that manner, the class just feels as if it is missing something when compared to other classes, in my opinion.
Once someone get the not so bright idea to make a more focused version, we won't see people taking it instead of the EK, we will see them taking it in ADDITION to it. The thought of a character at level 20 who has a +18 BAB and casts as an 18th level wizard doesn't sound balanced to me.
As it is now you can achieve the casting of an 18th level Wizard and a +15BAB, and nobody is arguing that it is overpowered, in fact many would say that there is plenty of room to add more, especially to those middle levels where the PrC seems to sag a bit. I'm not arguing for it, but that additional +3BAB is hardly a game breaker. Added options do not necessarily need to come in the form of a thematic straightjacket, nor do they need to give a significant power boost.
If you bothered to read before posting, you would have noticed I answered some 11 hours agoI'm gonna guess no.To be fair, the ball was dropped on all the PrCs but the Assassin and Dragon Disciple.Now this sounds interesting ... could you elaborate a bit?
More or less.
Nope not seeing it. If your a Fighter 1/wizard 5/EK 10. Your 16th level with a BAB of +13 a 14th level spellcaster, counts as an 11th level fighter for feats and has 11 feats (4 being combat) and the ability to cast a spell on a crit and base saves of +7/+5/+8
You are in all respects the classic fighter/mage
Don't forget the traits.
The Magic Knack trait, which is available in society play and in all published Adventure Paths, bumps a Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK 10 up to caster level 16. A Fighter 1/Wizard 9/EK 10 would have a +15 BAB, access to 9th level spells and would be a 20th level caster.
Dead levels aren't a problem when your caster level = your hit dice.
I don't think the ball was dropped at all when it comes to EK's.
It's easy to forget taht fighters and wizards aren't the only ways into the class. Bards, Summoners, Paladins, Barbarians, and Rangers can all get into the class and add their own touches to it. The ease to get into it and the the great skeleton it has all contribute well to it as a whole.
If I were to make any change to it id say that diverse training would also affect level special abilities of sorcerors and wizards. The fighter stuff is huge as already been pointed out. When you put it next to the easy requirements of the class you can essentially have 3 classes in stead of two.
I think EK's make a great class to burn other wizards as they have simple answers to the problems that enemy spellcasters posses and even easier answers to the troubles that opposing fighters have. They are more self reliant and actually help take pressure off your party's buffers as you will be memorizing and casting your own buffs without them having to do much of either.
While EKs are indeed the classic fighter/mage that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It requires a different mindset than either fighter or mage typically have. My afvorite builds are going to be the ones that take advantage of mobility feats like Wind Stance combined with mobility enhancing spells like fly, expeditious retreat, or spider climb as the best armor any fighter can have is to be unreachable by the enemies weapons.
I'm currently working on a 2paladin/6sorceror/10ek npc that I'll share with you once I'm finished writing him to show you what I mean.
|
My biggest problem with the class is that the Spell Critical ability doesn't have any synergy with the the Arcane Armor feats. I know there are much better ways of armoring yourself via arcane methods but it would be nice if you could be wearing a chain shirt and not have to worry about your 20% Spell Failure checks on criticals.
My biggest problem with the class is that the Spell Critical ability doesn't have any synergy with the the Arcane Armor feats. I know there are much better ways of armoring yourself via arcane methods but it would be nice if you could be wearing a chain shirt and not have to worry about your 20% Spell Failure checks on criticals.
Same thing I said, but I also included same thoughts on Arcane Strike too.
@The Speaker in Dreams,
Just what is it you're looking for? Have you actually played an Eldritch Knight? I played several of the 3.5 versions, and I was never lacking for power. Those "dead levels" you're talking about? +1 BAB and a caster level, along with bonus feats, faaar from dead for me.
Or do you just prefer PrC's that have a dozen bells and whistles at every level? In my experience, they are little more than that; they look pretty, but are typically highly circumstancial. Unless you've got a specific concept that uses those little extras, they often times don't come up. These types of PrC's annoy me after a while, because I've got 10 different abilites to keep track of that I'll never end up using, and the rare instances I forget I had the ability until after the chance has passed.
I never had a problem with classes having "dead levels" if the core abilities of the class itself fit what it was intended to do... I played a Ranger from 3.0, where the only class abilities you got were TWF, Favored enemy, and a handful of spells, and I never saw a problem. It did exactly what, at that time, I felt a Ranger should do. The additions in 3.5 were nice, but not necessary.
Personally, I haven't had the chance to play a PF Eldritch Knight, but my previous experience with the PrC was really good, and seeing as how they only added, didn't take anything away, I'm just having a really hard time seeing what's so "weak" about it.
The class fits a concept. Pure and simple. Any time you mash-up two different classes, it's not going to reach heights of either individual class. Plain and simple. But, if you're looking to play a mage that can hold their own in combat, this PrC does the job very well IMO.
@The Speaker in Dreams,
Just what is it you're looking for? Have you actually played an Eldritch Knight? I played several of the 3.5 versions, and I was never lacking for power. Those "dead levels" you're talking about? +1 BAB and a caster level, along with bonus feats, faaar from dead for me.
Or do you just prefer PrC's that have a dozen bells and whistles at every level? In my experience, they are little more than that; they look pretty, but are typically highly circumstancial. Unless you've got a specific concept that uses those little extras, they often times don't come up. These types of PrC's annoy me after a while, because I've got 10 different abilites to keep track of that I'll never end up using, and the rare instances I forget I had the ability until after the chance has passed.
I never had a problem with classes having "dead levels" if the core abilities of the class itself fit what it was intended to do... I played a Ranger from 3.0, where the only class abilities you got were TWF, Favored enemy, and a handful of spells, and I never saw a problem. It did exactly what, at that time, I felt a Ranger should do. The additions in 3.5 were nice, but not necessary.
Personally, I haven't had the chance to play a PF Eldritch Knight, but my previous experience with the PrC was really good, and seeing as how they only added, didn't take anything away, I'm just having a really hard time seeing what's so "weak" about it.
The class fits a concept. Pure and simple. Any time you mash-up two different classes, it's not going to reach heights of either individual class. Plain and simple. But, if you're looking to play a mage that can hold their own in combat, this PrC does the job very well IMO.
+1
|
|
Eldrich Knight works as Warrior-Mage combo.
If you disagree with that, crunch the numbers and provide some actual evidence as to why it doesn't work.
This has been talked about to death on these boards. The last time it was really seriously discussed, the "Warrior-Mage" camp wanted a Base Class that looked like this:
Full BAB
d10 HD
Full Spellcasting comparable to a wizard
Ability to cast in (at least) medium armor
spell channeling / storing or other similar class feature
and of course 2 skills per level, medium armor and martial weapons, etc
Does anyone actually think the above is balanced in any way shape or form?
The wizard is the strongest class in the game, and this has basically everything of value from that class plus full melee functionality. This "Warrior-Mage" makes the wizard class obsolete. It's a ridiculous idea.
Best part of the thread? - this is as "weak" as the Warrior-Mage camp was willing to go. Some wanted d12 HD, others wanted something like a paladin's weapon. This absurdly overpowered idea was the "compromise".
The game needs to be balanced, folks.
If you want a character that can cast like a wizard AND fight like a fighter, you have to give up something. The Eldrich Knight does this by letting you make a character that does one at 1-2 levels below your current level and the other at 4-5 levels. It is also customizable, letting you decide which of the two things (fighting or wizarding) you do better.
But something has to be sacrificed. You can't do both as well as a single classed character can, otherwise there'd be no point in ever playing a single-classed character.
So let me ask all of you something. Given that the wizard is a glass cannon, and the fighter has no spellcasting ability, and the fact that there needs to be balance in the system, how would you create a Warrior-Mage? How much spellcasting ability are you willing to sacrifice in order to wear light armor? medium armor? Would you give up 9th level spells for a full base attack?
If the Eldrich Knight doesn't work, how would YOU fix it in a way that is actually balanced? Because no one has answered that question yet.
ah for the good ole days of the elven bladesinger. ;-)I'm actually in process of attempting a PF-version of the Bladesinger and I'm basing 90% of it off of the old AD&D source material for it.
Yea!!!!! ;-)
So it's an elven-only class that's 100% better then everything else for the primary reason of "it's elven."
Please be sarcastic about this. My view of the universe can only take so many people who actively enjoy Complete Book of Elven Wankery. And that number of people is ideally 0.
I laughed so hard a bit of wee came out.
Thankyou for making my day.FWIW James Jacobs has said that the preq for AA being Elf is wrong as it is open to all races and PF will not have race specific classes. The Elf preq is a copy and paste error, hence Dwarven Defender being dropped.
|
And every single one of them was probably just better off staying in whatever class they were in originally, and being more effective in melee or being more effective in spellcasting. Doing two things poorly isn't a substitute for doing one thing well, especially when that "one thing" in the case of spellcasters can include almost anything.
Optimization wise - they probably would have been better off playing a straight bard or summoner etc., however that completely ignores half of the game of D&D, roleplaying. To players sometimes they want a name to attach to their character or even the mechanics to flow better with the theme of their character. The same goes for some other "unoptimized" PrCs like the Mystic Theurge (which while probably less powerful, would still be a fun class to play. In my opinion it's not *required* that every class and every PrC be 100% balanced versus all the others. At this point I might as well just play WoW, where the point is to have equal classes.
Also being not as good in two things but being ok with them is a player choice. People do it in real-life all the time. Sometimes in fact, it saves your parties ass when you have that second caster to help out, or have the second melee fighter against the magic immune golem. You may think that a generalist is useless, but there are people out there that like to play generalists. This class caters to those people. If the Eldritch Knight was a full caster with full BAB and bonus fighter feats... why would any fighter or wizard not take the PrC then?
Past this point the Eldritch Knight is actually pretty decently powered compared to other classes. The Arcane Archer has a pretty steep BAB requirement which means that either you'll be taking more fighter levels or starting the class at level 12. In addition a loss of 3 caster levels is pretty big. On the same note Arcane trickster also has a loss of 3 caster levels, however it comes from the requirement of 2d6 Sneak Attack, not from the class itself.
Yes, ball dropped, if only because of the entry requirements that force you to be a mage who kinda sorta eventually learns to use a martial weapon functionally about halfway through your career.
That's my main complaint as well.
And every single one of them was probably just better off staying in whatever class they were in originally, and being more effective in melee or being more effective in spellcasting. Doing two things poorly isn't a substitute for doing one thing well, especially when that "one thing" in the case of spellcasters can include almost anything.This a fallacy of thought when it comes to EK's or Gish characters in general. It assumes that I'm trying to be a fighter with wizard spells or wizard with fighter abilities. It rarely assumes that I'm playing an EK requiring its own mindset when it comes to playing.
It's not a question of doing one thing or two things. Rather, it is a question of doing the right thing. That is, what my character does to survive the oncoming conflict. If I'm a fighter, I do the fighter thing. If I'm a wizard I cast spells at it till it goes away. With an EK it's tougher to figure out because most people don't see a separate concept from the two. What they see is a wizard blindly stumbling into meelee or a fighter fumbling around with spellbooks and scrolls. The trick is to be neither, to groom your spells and feats so that they fit the concepts and strategies you are looking for. Yes, you do have versatility as has been pointed out but the unique feature about your character is that you can effectively take advantage of all those mass buffs you toss onto the party or get more mileage out of spells like Stoneskin or Greater Invisibility. When the situation changes where those strategies become moot than you have your versatility to fall back on, which only divine spellcasters(druids and clerics) can brag about having.
So am I better off just beign a fighter or just being a spellcaster? If I'm trying to be them and not what I actually built to than yeah.
|
The game needs to be balanced, folks.
And yet, a person going around in robes with a big book filled with scribbles can take out an army of people with swords and bows...
Also being not as good in two things but being ok with them is a player choice. People do it in real-life all the time. Sometimes in fact, it saves your parties ass when you have that second caster to help out, or have the second melee fighter against the magic immune golem. You may think that a generalist is useless, but there are people out there that like to play generalists. This class caters to those people. If the Eldritch Knight was a full caster with full BAB and bonus fighter feats... why would any fighter or wizard not take the PrC then?
+1
It's not about if something is better, but if it is fun.
Eldrich Knight works as Warrior-Mage combo.
If you disagree with that, crunch the numbers and provide some actual evidence as to why it doesn't work.
This has been talked about to death on these boards. The last time it was really seriously discussed, the "Warrior-Mage" camp wanted a Base Class that looked like this:
Full BAB
d10 HD
Full Spellcasting comparable to a wizard
Ability to cast in (at least) medium armor
spell channeling / storing or other similar class feature
and of course 2 skills per level, medium armor and martial weapons, etcDoes anyone actually think the above is balanced in any way shape or form?
The wizard is the strongest class in the game, and this has basically everything of value from that class plus full melee functionality. This "Warrior-Mage" makes the wizard class obsolete. It's a ridiculous idea.
Best part of the thread? - this is as "weak" as the Warrior-Mage camp was willing to go. Some wanted d12 HD, others wanted something like a paladin's weapon. This absurdly overpowered idea was the "compromise".
The game needs to be balanced, folks.
If you want a character that can cast like a wizard AND fight like a fighter, you have to give up something. The Eldrich Knight does this by letting you make a character that does one at 1-2 levels below your current level and the other at 4-5 levels. It is also customizable, letting you decide which of the two things (fighting or wizarding) you do better.
But something has to be sacrificed. You can't do both as well as a single classed character can, otherwise there'd be no point in ever playing a single-classed character.
So let me ask all of you something. Given that the wizard is a glass cannon, and the fighter has no spellcasting ability, and the fact that there needs to be balance in the system, how would you create a Warrior-Mage? How much spellcasting ability are you willing to sacrifice in order to...
Duskblade?
FWIW James Jacobs has said that the preq for AA being Elf is wrong as it is open to all races and PF will not have race specific classes. The Elf preq is a copy and paste error, hence Dwarven Defender being dropped.
The Dwarven Defender also would have needed a complete rework to not be useless.
First off - a few points of clarification:
1) What is "gish"? I've never heard this before ...
2) This thread was NEVER about "weak" or pumping the power of the class. Rather, if you look beyond that initial comment of perception, it was intended to be about explaining why/how it works the way it is - I didn't see the point/power/whatever you'd like to say of why every other PrC was designed a certain way (ie: lots of special abilities) and why this was was simply dropped outright ...
3) Given the way this forum is set up ... I can barely make heads or tails out of anything, so this being a "long discussion" - not for me. I've missed all the stuff, so any links would be appreciated just so I can "catch up" or just hit me w/hi-lights. Insulting/attacking the idea of criticism because it is old is less than helpful or productive. Thanks.
4) My comments about "filling out" the class were always more about giving definition to a blank template - it's since been pointed out that "blank template" was part of an intentional design (*likely*), so that's fine. I get it now.
Ok, beyond clarification, here's what a friend of mine and I have managed to do to try and fix things for this PrC.
On clarification, I get the power of Diverse Training - it means "free fighter levels" and the more I pondered this, the fact that it outright replaces/stands in for another class ... this is damn-near broken in power. So ... I totally stand corrected on "underpowered" or whatever you want to attribute to me before hand. That's DAMN powerful and the PrC, IMO, if it's really going to have that needs some limits and trade-offs.
W/out making a whole grid, I'll just list in bullets the changes. Mostly they come in the form of new PreReqs.
*+4 BAB requirement
*Caster Level lowered to 2nd level spells requirement
*Combat Casting, Arcane Strike, and Arcane Armor Training Feat requirements
*Spellcraft of 4 ranks requirement
*10th level capstone ability is changed as follows: character can store up to PrC spell levels of any combination into the weapon. At will in combat, the character can discharge 1 stored spell as a free action from the weapon upon making a successful attack. I've NO name for this, but it's a much more interesting ability, and leaves power and choice to use it in the hands of the player.
*No +1 caster level at 10th level of PrC
These are pretty much the house rules I'll be using with that class from now on. Main idea is to limit the levels of wizard and make more sacrifice for getting "free fighter levels" that is, with understanding, REALLY powerful.
When I envision what I believed the EK to be about, the glaring omission was a reduction of armor arcane spell failure chance as a class feature rather than feat reliant (as it is for everyone else). Sure, the EK gets some more feats to apply to it, but that detracts from the class's fighter-build concept.
Arcane Trickster:...it is more of a mage with rogue abilities than a rogue with magic imo
I agree.
What I want (need is too strong) is more of a rogue with magic. The minor and major magic rogue talents just aren't doing it for me, so I took a level or two of wizard instead. If I took the EK and dropped the BAB to medium progression, dropped the spell casting advancement to 4/5 (or maybe 3/5), changed diverse training so your EK levels counted for rogue talent choosing, and added Sneak Attack advancement like the Arcane Trickster's, I'd have something close to what I'm looking for.
First off - a few points of clarification:
1) What is "gish"? I've never heard this before ...
Fighter/Mage as in Githyanki. But we all know Githzerai rule!
|
|
Fighter/Mage as in Githyanki. But we all know Githzerai rule!First off - a few points of clarification:
1) What is "gish"? I've never heard this before ...
But the Githzerai don't ally themselves with red dragons! An obvious oversight so many seem to make...
When I envision what I believed the EK to be about, the glaring omission was a reduction of armor arcane spell failure chance as a class feature rather than feat reliant (as it is for everyone else). Sure, the EK gets some more feats to apply to it, but that detracts from the class's fighter-build concept.
That, too, would be a nice feature ...
On clarification, I get the power of Diverse Training - it means "free fighter levels" and the more I pondered this, the fact that it outright replaces/stands in for another class ... this is damn-near broken in power. So ... I totally stand corrected on "underpowered" or whatever you want to attribute to me before hand. That's DAMN powerful and the PrC, IMO, if it's really going to have that needs some limits and trade-offs.
No, it does not mean "free fighter levels". It means that your EK levels count as Fighter levels for the purposes of being allowed to take Fighter-only Feats.
Of which there are maybe a half dozen. Which you most likely aren't going to have the feat slot to take anyway, because your feat slots are going to be taken up with other feats that allow your character to work properly.
So yes, your initial "underwhelming" take was pretty accurate.
But the Githzerai don't ally themselves with red dragons! An obvious oversight so many seem to make...Fighter/Mage as in Githyanki. But we all know Githzerai rule!First off - a few points of clarification:
1) What is "gish"? I've never heard this before ...
Thats because Githzerai don't need to.
Tough enough without...
The last time it was really seriously discussed, the "Warrior-Mage" camp wanted a Base Class that looked like this:
Full BAB
d10 HD
Full Spellcasting comparable to a wizard
Ability to cast in (at least) medium armor
spell channeling / storing or other similar class feature
and of course 2 skills per level, medium armor and martial weapons, etc
To be fair, I don't remember anyone asking for more than bard-equivalent casting. :P
|
|
But the Githzerai don't ally themselves with red dragons! An obvious oversight so many seem to make...Fighter/Mage as in Githyanki. But we all know Githzerai rule!First off - a few points of clarification:
1) What is "gish"? I've never heard this before ...
Thats because Githzerai don't need to.
Tough enough without...
Lies! They have a freaking lichquenn for crying out loud! Have you seen the PF lich? It's makes the 3.5 lich look like an old man on Halloween!
To be fair, I don't remember anyone asking for more than bard-equivalent casting. :PThe last time it was really seriously discussed, the "Warrior-Mage" camp wanted a Base Class that looked like this:
Full BAB
d10 HD
Full Spellcasting comparable to a wizard
Ability to cast in (at least) medium armor
spell channeling / storing or other similar class feature
and of course 2 skills per level, medium armor and martial weapons, etc
Bit of a threadjack but Tejon's Iron Mage is pretty good.
W/out making a whole grid, I'll just list in bullets the changes. Mostly they come in the form of new PreReqs.*+4 BAB requirement
*Caster Level lowered to 2nd level spells requirement
*Combat Casting, Arcane Strike, and Arcane Armor Training Feat requirements
*Spellcraft of 4 ranks requirement
*10th level capstone ability is changed as follows: character can store up to PrC spell...
I like those requirements better. Make getting into the PRC EK a lot more flexible with out directly affecting the balance.
Lies! They have a freaking lichquenn for crying out loud! Have you seen the PF lich? It's makes the 3.5 lich look like an old man on Halloween!But the Githzerai don't ally themselves with red dragons! An obvious oversight so many seem to make...Fighter/Mage as in Githyanki. But we all know Githzerai rule!First off - a few points of clarification:
1) What is "gish"? I've never heard this before ...
Thats because Githzerai don't need to.
Tough enough without...
Hush your mouth, you evolved Kobold...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd point out there is a 'caster level cost' that is there for Arcane Archer/Arcane Trickster.
Arcane Archer. BAB + 6. Unless you want to take arcane archer after 12th level, you're not going to be a pure mage. So that's 3 levels + whatever else you take. Even if it's fighter 1, that's 4 levels total.
Arcane Trickster. Again, sneak attack 2d6 means that you'll be 3 caster levels behind, at least.
Eldrich Knight: Minimum of 2 levels, one if your DM lets you play Tiefling/Aasimar.
Edit: There's also my arcane legionary on the pathfinder DB.
Bit of a threadjack but Tejon's Iron Mage is pretty good.
Thanks. :) It still needs a little polish, but in the interest of sanity I'm deliberately neglecting it so long as I'm in the running for Superstar. Entirely playable, mind you... I'm just not satisfied yet!
Here's the current draft for those unfamiliar.