My concern with the powergaming element is that folks want the best of both worlds. I think that making a class that has arcane spellcasting as good (or even close to as good) as the wizard and with fighting powers as good (or even close to as good) as the fighter is fundamentally bad for the game. It makes the pure fighting or pure arcanist classes feel lame. It robs the limelight of existing hybrid classes like the bard or, honestly, the druid and the cleric.
If what folks are asking for is basically a cleric but that has the sorcerer/wizard spell list... well, that's just not something that we're all that interested in producing. Because an eldritch knight (or, honestly, a wizard or sorcerer who takes 2 or 3 or 4 levels and that's it) of a fighting class does the job, I think.
I totally agree with this, and I don't think that this is what people are asking for by any stretch. I also agree that arcane casting and fighting skills are polar opposites - I think that's the attraction, though.
If folks are asking for a bard-like character with that level of spellcasting and different focuses... that's a different story. We're trying a few variants of those out already, in fact, with the alchemist and the inquisitor and sort of the witch and the summoner.
If folks are asking for a fighter/wizard type that completely abandons the concept of "you have to earn your way to a point of balance between your two very different classes" and instead presents something that maintains that balance from the start... that's an interesting idea for a class, but it's not one we're quite ready to tackle.
I think the first of these is what people are asking for. The best example I can think of is the Psychic Warrior - he has the equivalent of bard casting, without the performance ability but with a few bonus feats instead. Lining the PsyWar up against the Eldritch Knight as a build, they are in many ways similar. However, the PsyWar has the edge in a melee encounter - not because of psionics, not in hit points or BAB, both of which are actually worse than the EK, but because of the powers: the Psychic Warrior has a whole slew of powers that are oriented toward combat and toward being used in combat. I experimented with this in one of the classes I posted a link to above, with moderate results, it needs more feedback and work to fine-tune it.
The existing problems with the Eldritch Knight are that as a caster they are behind the wizard, and as a combatant they are behind the fighter. This is all well and good - what they should be able to do is use magic to enhance their ability to fight, but this is not so easy to do if they don't have the chance to pre-buff. While it is fine that they have access to a lot of spells that effect their foes, these will be less effective at higher level as enemies get spell resistance that the EK lags to far behind to effect.
Three things I think are being asked for:
1) A new class that has bard-like spell casting and a combat focus.
2) Some new spells that have better in-combat applications, perhaps only accessible to to the specialist caster through a class (above) or a class feature choice or a feat.
Some examples/suggestions might be:
Force Strike - lvl 1, swift action to cast, duration 1 round, effect: make your weapon a force effect, add +1 damage/2 levels on successful hit.
Physical Perfection - lvl 2, swift action to cast, duration of 1 round per level, effect +2 Str/Dex/Con.
Ferrophilic Strike - lvl 2, swift action to cast, effect: your next attack with a metal weapon bypasses any iron-based metal shield or armour worn by your target.
Adamant Defence - lvl 3, standard action to cast, duration 1 minute/lvl, effect gain DR {level}/adamantine
3) Some new feats, likely rooted with Arcane Strike or Combat Casting in a feat tree, that help the fighting caster.
Some examples/suggestions might be:
Multi-Caster
Your division of training between magical studies and other fields increases your stamina and force of will.
Benefit: Add half of your non-casting levels to your effective casting level for purposes of determining level-effects and overcoming spell resistance. For the purpose of any casting class you have, all class levels that do not contribute to your spellcasting in that class are non-casting levels. However only one casting class you have can benefit from this feat; if you take this feat a second time it must be to enhance a different casting class you have levels in.
Arcane Channelling
You are able to focus your spells through your weapons.
Pre-requisite: Arcane Strike, BAB +6
Benefit: As a standard action you may cast any spell of a standard action casting time or less and cast that spell focussed through an attack you make in that action with your weapon. The spell must have a target other than personal. The spell then effects the target if you hit and damage as if they were struck and failed any reflex save to reduce damage. They still receive any Fortitude or Will saves against the spell effect. The spell does not effect any other person, or extend it's usual area of effect if it has one. For example, if you cast a fireball spell and focus it through your weapon in this fashion, it will not have a 20 foot radius of effect, and will only effect the target you hit; however, that target will take full damage with no chance of a Reflex save to reduce it.
Please feel free to use any of these ideas in any way you choose.
If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)Wow, I would never have thought to see one of the head designers of a system be so openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game.The smiley at the end of my post is internet-speak for "don't take my comment too seriously, let's all remember we're trying not to be jerks to each other." AKA: An attempt to lighten the mood of a thread that's got a lot of passion and potential for argumentative stuff going on. Sorry if it still came off as patronizing or condescending... I guess I hoped that my thousands of other posts on these boards where I try NOT to be patronizing or condescending would help support that too. (And now that I've written THAT, this post sounds condescending!)
ANYWAY.
My deal with the word "gish" is threefold. 1) I think the word is silly sounding. It sounds like the a word you might see in a comic book that's spelling out vomit or some other gross bodily fluid gushing out of a person to me. 2) It's technically a Wizards of the Coast word that isn't open content, as far as I know, and if this type of character class is to end up in a Paizo book at some point it can't be called a gish anyway. 3) It's a SPECIFIC type of fighter/wizard. Using the word gish to mean something OTHER than a githyanki of a specific type is like using the word "samurai" to describe a soldier in a modern army.
As for my take on the class... it's part of the game's fundamental design philosophy that you can be great at fighting or great at arcane spellcasting... but that those two skillsets are at polar opposites. Divine spellcasting is sort of the middleground, where you're actually pretty good at fighting AND at spells. And you've ALSO got the bard, which is a good combo class as well. And on top of that, you've got the eldritch knight prestige class that, I think, does a pretty good job at keeping a good BAB + a good set of...
Thank you for both your openness and the in-depth explanation. I've read several of your posts, and the tone I took from the one in question just wasn't what I usually read from you. Perhaps is just myself who took it that way.
What about the Gith?
Why doesn't the Githzerai get the love...
Wait a minute.. what's wrong with the bard?
Wait a minute.. what's wrong with the bard?
Who said anything is wrong with the Bard? As far as I'm concerned, the Bard is just fine until you try to shoehorn the class into what my idea of what a proper Fighter/Mage should be.
My deal with the word "gish" is threefold. 1) I think the word is silly sounding. It sounds like the a word you might see in a comic book that's spelling out vomit or some other gross bodily fluid gushing out of a person to me. 2) It's technically a Wizards of the Coast word that isn't open content, as far as I know, and if this type of character class is to end up in a Paizo book at some point it can't be called a gish anyway. 3) It's a SPECIFIC type of fighter/wizard. Using the word gish to mean something OTHER than a githyanki of a specific type is like using the word "samurai" to describe a soldier in a modern army.
You may not like the word, and honestly i dont love it either, but I know what people mean when they say it. Its a word, get over it. Language in gamer communities is a fluid thing. Despite ALOT of pushback from purists, the terms still means what it does. As far as it being non-open content. No one is asking for you to publish it in your books, or even use it yourself. Just accept that lots of people mean use it as it has come to be used. Honestly, if you can come up with a better word that will resonate as well, please do. I just get a little tired of typing out fighter/mage mixed character every now and then.
As for my take on the class... it's part of the game's fundamental design philosophy that you can be great at fighting or great at arcane spellcasting... but that those two skillsets are at polar opposites. Divine spellcasting is sort of the middleground, where you're actually pretty good at fighting AND at spells. And you've ALSO got the bard, which is a good combo class as well. And on top of that, you've got the eldritch knight prestige class that, I think, does a pretty good job at keeping a good BAB + a good set of spellcasting for your character.
The bard is a good combo class, but it is not a combo class that represents whats asked for. The bard is a mix of rogue and sorceror. Things like it's skill list, the performance powers and the focus on enchantment and illusion are not what is asked for. The general chasis that the bard represents IS what is asked for.
My concern with the powergaming element is that folks want the best of both worlds. I think that making a class that has arcane spellcasting as good (or even close to as good) as the wizard and with fighting powers as good (or even close to as good) as the fighter is fundamentally bad for the game. It makes the pure fighting or pure arcanist classes feel lame. It robs the limelight of existing hybrid classes like the bard or, honestly, the druid and the cleric.
Your concerns are almost directly voided by the summoner class. If you took even a fraction of the eidolons combat potential [i am speaking in generalities not the specific abilities of the eidolon, but it's ability to fight], and put it IN the summoner himself and you would have almost everything people want. If you are willing to have a pretty good caster and a very good combatant in 2 parts of one class, why cannot they be combined to a degree?
I am literally calling shenanigans. Because in the summoner I see cake and I see where i can eat it. So the idea that you guys dont feel the mix can be done in an acceptable fashion is bull. The potential and the power level is right there in the summoner with big shiny neon letters. We just want it in one package. I like the summoner class, I will play a summoner in some future game for sure. But because its split into two parts, it doesnt fill the need for a fighter/mage.
If what folks are asking for is basically a cleric but that has the sorcerer/wizard spell list... well, that's just not something that we're all that interested in producing. Because an eldritch knight (or, honestly, a wizard or sorcerer who takes 2 or 3 or 4 levels and that's it) of a fighting class does the job, I think.
The eldritch knight doesnt work untill mid to high levels. Pretty much everyone excepts that the eldritch knight doesnt come into its own untill around level 10. Your own product line highlights that the vast majority of games are played at the lower end of levels. The eldritch knight doesnt serve for your OWN PRODUCT LINE, which goes from level ONE to around 14 to 16.
A player wont even have a level of eldritch knight for the first two books in an AP. If you took what the balance the eldritch night gains by level 14-20 and turned it into a base class that would suffice. In fact you dont even have to make it as strong, the issue is about being able to play in that fashion from day one. Because a player should not have to struggle for 8 levels just to get to where he wants to be, particularly since those 8 levels can represent months or even years of real time. It just doesnt cover the nitch it is supposed to represent in the reality that is current gaming.
If folks are asking for a bard-like character with that level of spellcasting and different focuses... that's a different story. We're trying a few variants of those out already, in fact, with the alchemist and the inquisitor and sort of the witch and the summoner.
DING DING DING! we have a winner. Yes these classes are already a step in the right direction. The inquisitor if it where arcane is almost exactly what i want, and what many others do. The summoner is so close it hurts, but many people dont want a pet, they want to fight themselves.
If folks are asking for a fighter/wizard type that completely abandons the concept of "you have to earn your way to a point of balance between your two very different classes" and instead presents something that maintains that balance from the start... that's an interesting idea for a class, but it's not one we're quite ready to tackle.
This is what people want. The 'earn your way' is a load of crap to me. Does a paladin need to earn his way to being a cross between a fighter and a cleric? No. Does the bard need to earn his way between sorceror and rogue? No. 'Earn your way' is just another term for slogging through lower levels where your character isnt anything special untill you get to be awesome like everyone else at higher levels just in time for the campaign to end.
Your own product line contradicts this being a viable option. You dont go 1 to 20, so that the player gets a chance to actually spend some time with his 'earned' balanced character. You also dont start your AP's above first level. The vast majority of your modules are in the level range where that 'earned' balance hasn't occured yet.
Base classes better serve the majority of games, particularly the stlye of game your own company promotes. Saying the eldritch knight covers that nich isnt acceptable. If you arent ready to create a class that serves this purpose yet, thats fine, we all said we would wait when the gish craze first hit the shelves (here on these boards). What isn't acceptable is you shooting the idea entirely and calling it powergaming.
Your opinions are highly valued here on these boards, and rightfully so. But that also puts a level of responsibility on you to consider your words. There has been a whole set of people in this discussion that thought people were asking for a single class that behaves like gestault wizard fighter because you said it. No one who was calling for a gish class asked for that (on these boards). The most extreme request was something in line with the 3.5 duskblade, which is still not a gestault fighter wizard, and that was the absolute peak of the powerlevel of suggestion classes. And many, such as myself feel that level of power is not neccessary.
Again if you want to know what people want from a fightermage base class, look at the super genius archon, and the home brew Iron Mage here on these boards.
Wait a minute.. what's wrong with the bard?
He doesn't quite fit the fighter-mage image people have in their minds. Mostly because of his focus on enchantment and charm instead of buffs and evocations.
Hurrah! After all the junk about "wielding" vs. "carrying," finally a post that actually has something to say! :D
As for my take on the class... it's part of the game's fundamental design philosophy that you can be great at fighting or great at arcane spellcasting... but that those two skillsets are at polar opposites. Divine spellcasting is sort of the middleground, where you're actually pretty good at fighting AND at spells. And you've ALSO got the bard, which is a good combo class as well. And on top of that, you've got the eldritch knight prestige class that, I think, does a pretty good job at keeping a good BAB + a good set of spellcasting for your character.
If what folks are asking for is basically a cleric but that has the sorcerer/wizard spell list... well, that's just not something that we're all that interested in producing. Because an eldritch knight (or, honestly, a wizard or sorcerer who takes 2 or 3 or 4 levels and that's it) of a fighting class does the job, I think.
This is the part where I go, "But! But! That -is- what I want!" The problem with all of the classes that fit in the "can survive in melee and also have a bit of spellcasting going on" slot is that they have baggage, either in the form of religious dogma plus being expected to be a healbot (cleric), or in the form of being Sir Robin's Minstrel (bard).
I've made the comparison before of the warrior-mage being akin to a Jedi Knight, and that's what I'm looking for in one. Eldritch Knight might very well be fine around level 10+, but I also want a character who can operate meaningfully at levels 1 - 5 and still feel like the character concept being aimed for. The bard is probably closest, and if you reskin the class so that he's making Spellcraft checks instead of Perform checks or something similar, it kinda sorta works, but it's still a very kludgy solution to a hole in the ruleset. (Once upon a time, warrior-mage WAS the "elf class" ... it's not like there isn't precedent.)
If folks are asking for a bard-like character with that level of spellcasting and different focuses... that's a different story. We're trying a few variants of those out already, in fact, with the alchemist and the inquisitor and sort of the witch and the summoner.
If folks are asking for a fighter/wizard type that completely abandons the concept of "you have to earn your way to a point of balance between your two very different classes" and instead presents something that maintains that balance from the start... that's an interesting idea for a class, but it's not one we're quite ready to tackle.
Well please put me on the waiting list for when you're ready to start! I've got a character I've been wanting to play for 20 years...
-The Gneech
There are 3 arcane casting class with limited spell list to 6th level already. I don't think we need another one.
The bard can make great fighter/caster class. The only hurdle there is their spell list is really not compatible in my opinion. If some additional spell were to be added that would fix the Bard in the respect. The performance abilities of Bard are easy to deal with. I look at the old Bards handbook from 2E and they have kits that Bards could take that presented very warrior like concepts like the Blade Master. This can be done with Bard.
Now the Summoner isn't great as warrior/caster as their summoned pet outshines them and eventually you drop back let you summoned pet be your warrior half. The Alchemist could warrior oriented in the mutation form.
So this type really is covered.
What I'd like is full bab class with hint of arcane casting up to 4th level spells on similar progression as the Ranger. I'd even be happy with Sorcerer style that get only max 3 level spells.
I really don't want anything class that does magic better than a wizard or fights better than fighter. I like the idea of class that fights equally with fighter using arcane magic to do so.
And on top of that, you've got the eldritch knight prestige class that, I think, does a pretty good job at keeping a good BAB + a good set of...Well the Eldritch Knight is a bit sub-par when you look at things in pathfinder.
It lets you keep up with casting (after one more hit) and BAB, but it does precious little else.
Having a few level dependent things within it, or progressive marks would go a long way.
For example, if at higher EK levels you started reducing spell failure like the old spellsword class that would be a good addition for it.
Likewise would be expanding the diverse training to say progress some fighter or wizard features on a lesser level than a pure class character that would be useful.
As it is you are looking at ftr1/wiz5 or ftr1/sorc6 into the class and loosing 3BAB while doing so. In essence you don't get fighting *as well as* a bard until 9th level and the bard gets to wear armor!
In general I think many of the hybrid PrCs have erred too much on 'don't step on the pure class's toes' rather than develop their own niches.
Paizo has come along way in this, but not all the way by any means,
James
I really have to disagree that the EK is subpar. It gets really good combat abilities and 9th level spells. I personally think its overpowered still.
I really have to disagree that the EK is subpar. It gets really good combat abilities and 9th level spells. I personally think its overpowered still.
And on top of that, you've got the eldritch knight prestige class that, I think, does a pretty good job at keeping a good BAB + a good set of...Well the Eldritch Knight is a bit sub-par when you look at things in pathfinder.
It lets you keep up with casting (after one more hit) and BAB, but it does precious little else.
Having a few level dependent things within it, or progressive marks would go a long way.
For example, if at higher EK levels you started reducing spell failure like the old spellsword class that would be a good addition for it.
Likewise would be expanding the diverse training to say progress some fighter or wizard features on a lesser level than a pure class character that would be useful.
As it is you are looking at ftr1/wiz5 or ftr1/sorc6 into the class and loosing 3BAB while doing so. In essence you don't get fighting *as well as* a bard until 9th level and the bard gets to wear armor!
In general I think many of the hybrid PrCs have erred too much on 'don't step on the pure class's toes' rather than develop their own niches.
Paizo has come along way in this, but not all the way by any means,
James
The problem is it is sub par UNTILL it gets to its upper range of levels. So sucky untill level 10, then good, thenreally good at levels 14-20 is to me sub par as a whole.
The problem is it is sub par UNTILL it gets to its upper range of levels. So sucky untill level 10, then good, thenreally good at levels 14-20 is to me sub par as a whole.
I really have to disagree that the EK is subpar. It gets really good combat abilities and 9th level spells. I personally think its overpowered still.
Totally agree. I think it doesn't become OP until after arround lvl 15, when ballance doesn't matter so much because nothing really is.
|
If you are willing to have a pretty good caster and a very good combatant in 2 parts of one class, why cannot they be combined to a degree?
To a point, the Summoner can do this. The Aspect and Merge class features are good starts, but even allowing something like Greater or Improved Aspect could help a lot.
If you are willing to have a pretty good caster and a very good combatant in 2 parts of one class, why cannot they be combined to a degree?To a point, the Summoner can do this. The Aspect and Merge class features are good starts, but even allowing something like Greater or Improved Aspect could help a lot.
Which is why i said its so close it hurts. If you say, gave the summoner 1/3 of the eidolons evolution points, ditched the eidolon itself, and changed the summoner SLA to something that let you hit a little harder 3+cha times per day you have like the perfect example of what I want.
|
|
Which is why i said its so close it hurts. If you say, gave the summoner 1/3 of the eidolons evolution points, ditched the eidolon itself, and changed the summoner SLA to something that let you hit a little harder 3+cha times per day you have like the perfect example of what I want.
May not be what you were thinking about, but now the image of a paladin with evolutions is floating around in my mind...
Smite Evil with 8 natural attacks and as many weapons as you can actually use... *is in awe*
Which is why i said its so close it hurts. If you say, gave the summoner 1/3 of the eidolons evolution points, ditched the eidolon itself, and changed the summoner SLA to something that let you hit a little harder 3+cha times per day you have like the perfect example of what I want.May not be what you were thinking about, but now the image of a paladin with evolutions is floating around in my mind...
Smite Evil with 8 natural attacks and as many weapons as you can actually use... *is in awe*
Yea i dont need that much cheese thanks ;) I'm actually lactose intolerant...
Yea i dont need that much cheese thanks ;) I'm actually lactose intolerant...Which is why i said its so close it hurts. If you say, gave the summoner 1/3 of the eidolons evolution points, ditched the eidolon itself, and changed the summoner SLA to something that let you hit a little harder 3+cha times per day you have like the perfect example of what I want.May not be what you were thinking about, but now the image of a paladin with evolutions is floating around in my mind...
Smite Evil with 8 natural attacks and as many weapons as you can actually use... *is in awe*
Now imagine the Evolved Paladin is a Thri-kreen with the Multi-Weapon Fighting feats...
In fact that's exactly the meaning I was referring to without coming right out and saying exactly what I meant. ;-) (urbandictionary.com is a good place to go to find a definition without triggering NSFW alarms, by the by.)I had this awkward moment once when a non gamer friend of mine saw a "gish" thread I was reading and got the Very wrong ideal of what kinda of site I was looking at based off the non-game term "gish"
Look it up.....your both close and so far off from what that term means to a good deal of non-gaming people
I also hate I have to explain what the hell I mean..I can say fighter/mage or warrior/wizard and even non-gamers know what I mean. So yeah James I am so with ya
Oh god...why did I look that up. I could have lived my whole life a happy man without knowing there was a word for that.
|
The smiley at the end of my post is internet-speak for "don't take my comment too seriously, let's all remember we're trying not to be jerks to each other." AKA: An attempt to lighten the mood of a thread that's got a lot of passion and potential for argumentative stuff going on. Sorry if it still came off as patronizing or condescending... I guess I hoped that my thousands of other posts on these boards where I try NOT to be patronizing or condescending would help support that too. (And now that I've written THAT, this post sounds condescending!)
I don't know, I constantly get the idea that caring about the mechanical underpinnings of the system is severely frowned on here - even by Paizo staff. Optimizing is a bad word, and anytime I try to talk about the mechanical issues of some part of the game that worries, interests or pleases me here, I get the "well, just roleplay. If you don't ignore this issue's mechanical aspects, you're not really an RPGer - you optimizing munchkin you." It's really prevalent here - here specifically.
I get that those of us that ruminate on numbers, graphs, statistics and the mechanical intricacies of the system tend, by personality, to not be the best at presenting our ideas and thoughts in a socially amusing way - some of the best analyzers have historically presented both themselves and their ideas quite poorly here. But I don't think I've ever been insulting or attacked anyone - our natures probably make us a bit pedantic, but I get so tired of the constant attacks against people who care about the math. And I get it worse here on Paizo than anywhere else.
I care about the mechanical underpinnings of the system because I care about the success of the system! I enjoy the game! I learn the intricacies of the rules both because I naturally enjoy it, and because my goal is to be so comfortable with the rules system that I no longer have to think about it when playing / running a game. I like being the person that says "That provokes and attack of opportunity," or "Concentration checks are now your spellcasting level plus your casting modifier and any modifiers such as combat casting, which gives you a +4 on concentration checks when casting defensively". That way, we don't have to look it up, the game continues.
My concern with the powergaming element is that folks want the best of both worlds. I think that making a class that has arcane spellcasting as good (or even close to as good) as the wizard and with fighting powers as good (or even close to as good) as the fighter is fundamentally bad for the game. It makes the pure fighting or pure arcanist classes feel lame. It robs the limelight of existing hybrid classes like the bard or, honestly, the druid and the cleric.
::sigh::
And yet again - I haven't seen anyone ask for essentially a class that makes a gestalt - I've only seen people accusing those who want synergy between fighting and arcane casting ability of wanting this level of power. To see you do the same is what frankly angered me.
I love the idea of an arcane warrior. It's what I most want to play. In 3.5 I wasn't able to build something playable that fit my concept until the Tome of Battle came out- because I wanted a fighter first, not a caster first.
Kirth Gersen's extensive house rules also make this possible, and for the second time ever I'm able to play my favorite kind of character. I cannot play this character with the official rule set - and I think the concept is popular enough that it's a real let down it's not possible.
The bard can't do it - his spell list is not set up to allow it. I think the bard might work as a good base with a spell focus on self buffs, enemy debuffs delivered through weapon use and defense would be all I want. I don't even necessarily want attack / damage spells. I would like them to have access to the fighter only casting disruption feats as well - they use their knowledge of what casters need to do to get their spells off to stop them.
My current gish in Kirth's game is a fighter first and foremost. In his game fighters get talents much like rogues, and the eldritch knight gets talents that help arcane casters combine casting with combat. So you can be a martial character who actually has a thematically appropriate bonded item!
I don't think it's a ridiculous request to have a playable fighter mage - and I don't think those that make it deserve to be vilified, dismissed, or misrepresented as wanting to break the game.
James Jacobs wrote:
My concern with the powergaming element is that folks want the best of both worlds. I think that making a class that has arcane spellcasting as good (or even close to as good) as the wizard and with fighting powers as good (or even close to as good) as the fighter is fundamentally bad for the game. It makes the pure fighting or pure arcanist classes feel lame. It robs the limelight of existing hybrid classes like the bard or, honestly, the druid and the cleric.::sigh::
And yet again - I haven't seen anyone ask for essentially a class that makes a gestalt - I've only seen people accusing those who want synergy between fighting and arcane casting ability of wanting this level of power. To see you do the same is what frankly angered me.
A lot of people have asked for exactly that. That is why he is concerned about it. MiB argued vehemently earlier that the EK was not a good enough caster or warrior to fill the role, even though it gets 17 spell levels and competative melee ability. I think he has revisited this, but I can never tell with him. Cold Napalm has also implied that the EK is not powerful enough. Just because many people are asking for something in line with the Bard's power doesn't mean everyone is.
A lot of people have asked for exactly that. That is why he is concerned about it. MiB argued vehemently earlier that the EK was not a good enough caster or warrior to fill the role, even though it gets 17 spell levels and competative melee ability. I think he has revisited this, but I can never tell with him. Cold Napalm has also implied that the EK is not powerful enough. Just because many people are asking for something in line with the Bard's power doesn't mean everyone is.James Jacobs wrote:
My concern with the powergaming element is that folks want the best of both worlds. I think that making a class that has arcane spellcasting as good (or even close to as good) as the wizard and with fighting powers as good (or even close to as good) as the fighter is fundamentally bad for the game. It makes the pure fighting or pure arcanist classes feel lame. It robs the limelight of existing hybrid classes like the bard or, honestly, the druid and the cleric.::sigh::
And yet again - I haven't seen anyone ask for essentially a class that makes a gestalt - I've only seen people accusing those who want synergy between fighting and arcane casting ability of wanting this level of power. To see you do the same is what frankly angered me.
But thats just it the EK is NOT IN LINE WITH THE BARDS POWER, at least not in the levels people actually play in. My guess, and this is based on previous dealings with MIB, his analysis, of the EK is based on in game experience. Most of us have never seen a level 20 EK in action. I've never seen one over level 9 or 10 when the player finally gets fed up with it and plays something else.
You have to understand the impressions of this prestige class are formed by in game experience. And for the vast majority of it's career, MIB is completely right about the EK. It isnt good enough at anything to be worth a damn. Based on my experience with the EK in actual games i was actually surprised to see a level 20 EK be reasonably competant. But that is because i have played very little at or near that level.
You yourself admit that the EK doesnt really come into it's own until 15ish. Guess what that means, the EK doesnt work. Its real powerful at 15+ because it has magic, and anything with magic at 15+ always looks too powerful. Thats the game not the class. Any CHARACTER that tries to build for EK will suck 1-10 and be ok 11-15. That means the class is weak for the vast majority of games. Its not a balanced class, it has loads of problems and does nothing to overcome them. In the end they are overcome by the relative power of magic, and not in any way by the class itself.
It is possible when someone says a class isnt powerful enough, or doesnt fight well enough, they mean at the levels people actually play in.
I think there is a question that has been begged over the past couple of pages of this thread.
The question is one that is brought up with the bard, which gets deep access to arcane Illusion and Enchantment schools, brought up with the Summoner, who gets solid access to the Conjuration school, and the Alchemist, who gets solid access to the Transmutation school, and reasonable access to Divination. The missing arcanist hybrids, as I see it, are the hybrid martial Abjurer/Evoker/arcane Necromancer, as the negative energy cleric is covering the martial divine necromancer pretty well.
Adding to that missing type some of the useful in melee Illusion and Transmutation spells, and you may end up with too much. The Alchemist is a very capable melee hybrid in the testing my wife did, although it does play similar to a bard in some ways. Nothing in the way extracts work prevent them from working with armor, so the armored hybrid already exists well in the Alchemist, if you invest the feats to make it work, assuming you want Transmutation and personal Divination spells.
I think there is a question that has been begged over the past couple of pages of this thread.
The question is one that is brought up with the bard, which gets deep access to arcane Illusion and Enchantment schools, brought up with the Summoner, who gets solid access to the Conjuration school, and the Alchemist, who gets solid access to the Transmutation school, and reasonable access to Divination. The missing arcanist hybrids, as I see it, are the hybrid martial Abjurer/Evoker/arcane Necromancer, as the negative energy cleric is covering the martial divine necromancer pretty well.
Adding to that missing type some of the useful in melee Illusion and Transmutation spells, and you may end up with too much. The Alchemist is a very capable melee hybrid in the testing my wife did, although it does play similar to a bard in some ways. Nothing in the way extracts work prevent them from working with armor, so the armored hybrid already exists well in the Alchemist, if you invest the feats to make it work, assuming you want Transmutation and personal Divination spells.
The problem is the alchemist is not a 'real' caster. He doesnt use magic, this is both a flavor and mechanical problem. I cant cast spells, so I am not really doing much for my party. Flavor wise its to me at least completely wrong. It has more of a mad scientist feel then a true mage. And that is ok, thats a great concept and can/will be fun to play. But its not a fighter mage.
A lot of people have asked for exactly that. That is why he is concerned about it. MiB argued vehemently earlier that the EK was not a good enough caster or warrior to fill the role, even though it gets 17 spell levels and competative melee ability. I think he has revisited this, but I can never tell with him. Cold Napalm has also implied that the EK is not powerful enough. Just because many people are asking for something in line with the Bard's power doesn't mean everyone is.James Jacobs wrote:
My concern with the powergaming element is that folks want the best of both worlds. I think that making a class that has arcane spellcasting as good (or even close to as good) as the wizard and with fighting powers as good (or even close to as good) as the fighter is fundamentally bad for the game. It makes the pure fighting or pure arcanist classes feel lame. It robs the limelight of existing hybrid classes like the bard or, honestly, the druid and the cleric.::sigh::
And yet again - I haven't seen anyone ask for essentially a class that makes a gestalt - I've only seen people accusing those who want synergy between fighting and arcane casting ability of wanting this level of power. To see you do the same is what frankly angered me.
But thats just it the EK is NOT IN LINE WITH THE BARDS POWER, at least not in the levels people actually play in. My guess, and this is based on previous dealings with MIB, his analysis, of the EK is based on in game experience. Most of us have never seen a level 20 EK in action. I've never seen one over level 9 or 10 when the player finally gets fed up with it and plays something else.
You have to understand the impressions of this prestige class are formed by in game experience. And for the vast majority of it's career, MIB is completely right about the EK. It isnt good enough at anything to be worth a damn. Based on my experience with the EK in actual games i was actually surprised to see a level 20 EK be...
MiB was comparing the class at high level play and saying it was no good. No one I have seen has argued getting into EK works as people want, or that low-mid level EK are good. If your experience is people quitting at lvl 9-10, they quit just before the EK started doing what they want. That is when it is just catching up to the bard. 10-15 it compares in a pretty ballanced way to the bard, and starts to be very good with a few buffs. Over 15, it has good spellcasting and good fighting ability. Better than any other class that combines the 2.
I do not like this power curve. I think the EK needs to be brought up at the low levels so it can fight and isn't just a gimped mage, and brought down at the higher levels so it can't buff and outshine the melee while still casting tons of high level spells. This seems to fit really well with the idea of using the bard chasie to make a good swordsage.
A lot of people have asked for exactly that. That is why he is concerned about it. MiB argued vehemently earlier that the EK was not a good enough caster or warrior to fill the role, even though it gets 17 spell levels and competative melee ability. I think he has revisited this, but I can never tell with him. Cold Napalm has also implied that the EK is not powerful enough. Just because many people are asking for something in line with the Bard's power doesn't mean everyone is.
And yet again - I haven't seen anyone ask for essentially a class that makes a gestalt - I've only seen people accusing those who want synergy between fighting and arcane casting ability of wanting this level of power. To see you do the same is what frankly angered me.
That's not really what I think MiB is asking for. What he's basically saying is the EK is not a good enough fighter and ends up falling back on being a wizard that isn't as good a wizard. The loss of 2 caster levels just isn't worth it. I'd agree with that if you EK build is F1/W9/EK10. That build does suck.
But I prefer the W5/F6/EK9 build better. You get 7th level spells, you get 7 bonus combat feats, 1 bonus magic feat, 17 BAB, good saves in Fort, access to 15th level fighter feats. A couple of buffs and you are keeping up with the fighter But even no buffs you are better than rogue or cleric in straight combat. As well you have little bit of utility out of combat from spells. Only issue is you suck for quite few level getting to this point.
|
|
A lot of people have asked for exactly that. That is why he is concerned about it. MiB argued vehemently earlier that the EK was not a good enough caster or warrior to fill the role, even though it gets 17 spell levels and competative melee ability. I think he has revisited this, but I can never tell with him. Cold Napalm has also implied that the EK is not powerful enough. Just because many people are asking for something in line with the Bard's power doesn't mean everyone is.
No, they're not. They're not asking to cast as well as a wizard and fight as well as a fighter. They're asking that the class works such that the character can enter combat as a fighter that uses spells instead of feats to be relevent in battle.
The issue is the way bonded items, feats, arcane magic and combat works, using one class ability negates the other. This is the same fundamentally flawed design the monk has, where using his greater maneuverability negates his other major class feature, flurry. These things should synergize with each other to create a distinct class ability, not work against each other to hold a character concept back.
MiB was comparing the class at high level play and saying it was no good. No one I have seen has argued getting into EK works as people want, or that low-mid level EK are good. If your experience is people quitting at lvl 9-10, they quit just before the EK started doing what they want. That is when it is just catching up to the bard. 10-15 it compares in a pretty ballanced way to the bard, and starts to be very good with a few buffs. Over 15, it has good spellcasting and good fighting ability. Better than any other class that combines the 2.
I do not like this power curve. I think the EK needs to be brought up at the low levels so it can fight and isn't just a gimped mage, and brought down at the higher levels so it can't buff and outshine the melee while still casting tons of high level spells. This seems to fit really well with the idea of using the bard chasie to make a good swordsage.
MiB was arguing that at high levels the EK was always better off casting spells then fighting. That was his principle disagreement with the class. And in the vast majority of circumstance he is right. It was only good for the EK to enter combat in fairly specific circumstances, namely, if he happened to be fighting a bunch of normal mages (the antimagic trick) and when he had 3 or 4 buffs up and running. This is pretty limited in my opinion. And in MOST circumstances, the EK doesnt want to get into melee at high levels. That is a problem with the class no? The conflict between Arcane Armor feats, arcane strike, and the critical spell capstone ability is a major problem for the class.
And remember even MIB relented (as much as he is capable of doing so) when you showed him an actual well built high level EK and started talking about what buffs you needed up to be able to stand up in melee. I would like to know his opinion after looking at your buffed EK, and what it can or cant do, I think it would change his mind some. I do believe however he has never seen an EK in such a state before, because most people that care enough about the mechanics of the game wrote off the EK a long time ago because of the afformentioned arsed power curve.
But honestly that aside it seems you and I at least are in agreement. I do think EK style on a bard chasis would fill alot of what people want. So long as they figure out a way to allow its principal feats and abilities to actually mix.
And you are right, those people probably dropped the EK a few levels before it started to get good, but you know what, our game stoped after a few levels anyway. I dont know about you but most of my games that i run and play in stop around 12-14 for a whole host of reasons (people want something new by then, its harder to run, more complicated to play, stories are harder to come up with etc.) so i totally understand when one of my group mates gets fed up with their EK build and tries something else. I dont think i would have ever made it that long in the first place. But I like others have long ago written off multiclassing casters even if there is a prestige class that supposedly makes it work.
A lot of people have asked for exactly that. That is why he is concerned about it. MiB argued vehemently earlier that the EK was not a good enough caster or warrior to fill the role, even though it gets 17 spell levels and competative melee ability. I think he has revisited this, but I can never tell with him. Cold Napalm has also implied that the EK is not powerful enough. Just because many people are asking for something in line with the Bard's power doesn't mean everyone is.No, they're not. They're not asking to cast as well as a wizard and fight as well as a fighter. They're asking that the class works such that the character can enter combat as a fighter that uses spells instead of feats to be relevent in battle.
The issue is the way bonded items, feats, arcane magic and combat works, using one class ability negates the other. This is the same fundamentally flawed design the monk has, where using his greater maneuverability negates his other major class feature, flurry. These things should synergize with each other to create a distinct class ability, not work against each other to hold a character concept back.
And yet with these restrictions, the EK becomes a class that is overpowered... Interesting. Pehaps it doesn't need synergystic abilities because it works as it is, and if they synergized they would have to be downgraded.
That's not really what I think MiB is asking for. What he's basically saying is the EK is not a good enough fighter and ends up falling back on being a wizard that isn't as good a wizard. The loss of 2 caster levels just isn't worth it. I'd agree with that if you EK build is F1/W9/EK10. That build does suck.
But I prefer the W5/F6/EK9 build better. You get 7th level spells, you get 7 bonus combat feats, 1 bonus magic feat, 17 BAB, good saves in Fort, access to 15th level fighter feats. A couple of buffs and you are keeping up with the fighter But even no buffs you are better than rogue or cleric in straight combat. As well you have little bit of utility out of combat from spells. Only issue is you suck for quite few level getting to this point.
I personally prefer the W8/F2/EK10 build. 9th level spells, 16 BAB, access to 12th lvl fighter feats (GWS), an extra point of damage form arcane strike, the EK capstone, but loss of 2 feats and 1 point of hit+damage from fighter, and 6 average HP. My problem with my build is that he is too good, and not ballanced against other classes
A lot of people have asked for exactly that. That is why he is concerned about it. MiB argued vehemently earlier that the EK was not a good enough caster or warrior to fill the role, even though it gets 17 spell levels and competative melee ability. I think he has revisited this, but I can never tell with him. Cold Napalm has also implied that the EK is not powerful enough. Just because many people are asking for something in line with the Bard's power doesn't mean everyone is.
The problem is that the EK as presented at 20th level is that he is a 15-18th level wizard or a 15-18th level fighter. He's not good enough to make either stand on it's own, and he's having problems to combine both. He needs more spells that mesh with combat and feats that mesh the two facets together rather than more power.
The problem with the EK at low level is that he isn't an EK, he's a fighter/wizard (or ranger/wizard or paladin/sorcerer or whatever) who's behind the curve at either. He makes up some ground by about level 15, then starts to fall behind again.
No, they're not. They're not asking to cast as well as a wizard and fight as well as a fighter. They're asking that the class works such that the character can enter combat as a fighter that uses spells instead of feats to be relevent in battle.
Exactly so. A dedicated class would have a caster level that didn't need scaling. It doesn't matter that he's restricted to spells of 5th or 6th level, because that isn't the important thing, the important thing is that he needs spells that blend his combat features, and less of the 'typical' arcane spells that a wizard or sorcerer might use.
As I've said before, an arcane version of the Psychic Warrior or a combat oriented Bard with a better spell list would be ideal for this. The current bard is a rogue/sorcerer rather than a fighter/wizard; he's good, the basis is there, but the spell-list and the abilities need to be re-written.
Creative Director
|
Well the Eldritch Knight is a bit sub-par when you look at things in pathfinder.
It lets you keep up with casting (after one more hit) and BAB, but it does precious little else.
Single classed characters need SOMETHING to compete for cool factor, remember. That the eldritch knight gains little more than a good BAB and good spellcasting and not much more is the whole point of the class.
Anyway, this isn't going to have an official solution on this thread—we can go around and around and around forever here, as the past few decades of internet threads on this topic prove. Paizo IS aware of the desire for an alternate solution to the "problem" than the eldritch knight, and we'll quite likely take a stab at a solution in a product some day... but not today or this year, by the sounds of it. So please don't take my coming absence from this thread as indication that Paizo's ignoring these requests. :-)
|
They're not asking to cast as well as a wizard and fight as well as a fighter. They're asking that the class works such that the character can enter combat as a fighter that uses spells instead of feats to be relevent in battle.The issue is the way bonded items, feats, arcane magic and combat works, using one class ability negates the other. This is the same fundamentally flawed design the monk has, where using his greater maneuverability negates his other major class feature, flurry. These things should synergize with each other to create a distinct class ability, not work against each other to hold a character concept back.
I know I've mentioned this before, so I apologize for bringing it up again but ... WOW! The more I read this thread, the more I get cautiously excited that the class I've mentioned a few times already is going to make many of the folks in this thread pretty happy. I know it's kind of lame to throw out cryptic stuff like this ... I guess I'm just saying that there is hopefully going to be a class out in the next few months that will fit exactly the role many of you are looking for.
OK, I'm done now, I promise - I will not bring it up again until it (hopefully) see the light of day.
But honestly that aside it seems you and I at least are in agreement. I do think EK style on a bard chasis would fill alot of what people want. So long as they figure out a way to allow its principal feats and abilities to actually mix.
I don't per se disagree with you either, but think the full sorceror/wizard spell list up to level 6 spells on a bard chassis isn't going to happen, either. What I think makes the most sense is to figure out what portions of 6 levels of that full list would make a reasonable and useful martial arcanist, who swings a sword to cast spells. Then, features have to be added to open up, IMHO, arcane casting of that list in medium armor, with a sword and shield. The Psychic Warrior does this very well, although psionic powers aren't spells, just as much as elixers aren't spells either.
So please don't take my coming absence from this thread as indication that Paizo's ignoring these requests. :-)
Sense Motive:
I believe him.
|
|
And yet with these restrictions, the EK becomes a class that is overpowered... Interesting. Pehaps it doesn't need synergystic abilities because it works as it is, and if they synergized they would have to be downgraded.
The issue is the way bonded items, feats, arcane magic and combat works, using one class ability negates the other. This is the same fundamentally flawed design the monk has, where using his greater maneuverability negates his other major class feature, flurry. These things should synergize with each other to create a distinct class ability, not work against each other to hold a character concept back.
Again, they are only able to match up at very high levels. That's not good design. How about they are allowed to be average on the power scale for 90% of the game, instead of low to pathetic for 60% of the game (more than that when you consider how few games get past 15th level. I've never played in one.), average for 15% and then above average for the last 25%? Thats simply poor design.
In my perfect EK, I'd lower the caster prerequisites, raise the fighter / melee prerequisites, allow a fighter mage to use magic to allow him to participate in fights, and lower spellcasting progression while adding more fighter type stuffs (more feats? Or maybe improve the ability to use your spells in melee through armor use bonuses or action economy?). I'd also create spells, maybe even class specific spells, that make sense for a caster that is primarily interested in improving their relevence in close combat.
A class that is nothing but a burden on a party until 12th+ level is absolutely useless to the majority of gamers.
But honestly that aside it seems you and I at least are in agreement. I do think EK style on a bard chasis would fill alot of what people want. So long as they figure out a way to allow its principal feats and abilities to actually mix.I don't per se disagree with you either, but think the full sorceror/wizard spell list up to level 6 spells on a bard chassis isn't going to happen, either. What I think makes the most sense is to figure out what portions of 6 levels of that full list would make a reasonable and useful martial arcanist, who swings a sword to cast spells. Then, features have to be added to open up, IMHO, arcane casting of that list in medium armor, with a sword and shield. The Psychic Warrior does this very well, although psionic powers aren't spells, just as much as elixers aren't spells either.
My opinion is that the bulk of those spells are in the Transmutation, Abjuration, Necromancy and Evocation schools. It doesnt have to be a full list, i would just like a spell list created with this kind of class in mind. I'd say leave out most of conjuration except maybe mage armor, and such. Enchantment and Illusion can probably be left out entirely. I would leave a few divination spells particularly detect magic, since every party needs detect magic to identify magic items. And in the event your sword mage is your mage, it's pretty important.
MiB was arguing that at high levels the EK was always better off casting spells then fighting. That was his principle disagreement with the class. And in the vast majority of circumstance he is right. It was only good for the EK to enter combat in fairly specific circumstances, namely, if he happened to be fighting a bunch of normal mages (the antimagic trick) and when he had 3 or 4 buffs up and running. This is pretty limited in my opinion. And in MOST circumstances, the EK doesnt want to get into melee at high levels. That is a problem with the class no? The conflict between Arcane Armor feats, arcane strike, and the critical spell capstone ability is a major problem for the class.
This is only true if you focus more on the wizard side of the EK (F 1/Wiz 9/EK 10) which is considered the optimal build. If you focus more on the fighter side of the EK (F5/Wiz 5 EK 10), then you normally want to get into hand-to-hand (unless you specialize in ranged combat aka archer). A lot of players shun the latter make-up because they feel spell levels trump melee. But if you want to be melee oriented, 9th level spells don't offer much for you because very few 9th level spells actually buff you for melee combat. There aren't many more 8th level spells that buff for melee either. In fact, most buff spells are level 6 or less unless you prefer the polymorph style spells aka Giant Form's I & II for instance. The high-level EK can be quite competent in melee and relish it in fact if he wants to.
Well the Eldritch Knight is a bit sub-par when you look at things in pathfinder.
It lets you keep up with casting (after one more hit) and BAB, but it does precious little else.
Single classed characters need SOMETHING to compete for cool factor, remember. That the eldritch knight gains little more than a good BAB and good spellcasting and not much more is the whole point of the class.
Anyway, this isn't going to have an official solution on this thread—we can go around and around and around forever here, as the past few decades of internet threads on this topic prove. Paizo IS aware of the desire for an alternate solution to the "problem" than the eldritch knight, and we'll quite likely take a stab at a solution in a product some day... but not today or this year, by the sounds of it. So please don't take my coming absence from this thread as indication that Paizo's ignoring these requests. :-)
Might that "stab" be re-working the eldritch knight somewhere down the road so that if feels more like a balance between fighter and mage through all levels :) I would like to see that instead of a new class/prestige class to cover this concept, as it seems that the eldritch knight's intent is to fill the arcane warrior role. I say this because I'd much rather see an overall narrower range of class/prestige class options that cover all possible character concepts than a plethora of options that sort of overlap each other akin to the mess of classes available in 3.5.
This is only true if you focus more on the wizard side of the EK (F 1/Wiz 9/EK 10) which is considered the optimal build. If you focus more on the fighter side of the EK (F5/Wiz 5 EK 10), then you normally want to get into hand-to-hand (unless you specialize in ranged combat aka archer). A lot of players shun the latter make-up because they feel spell levels trump melee. But if you want to be melee oriented, 9th level spells don't offer much for you because very few 9th level spells actually buff you for melee combat. There aren't many more 8th level spells that buff for melee either. In fact, most buff spells are level 6 or less unless you prefer the polymorph style spells aka Giant Form's I & II for instance. The high-level EK can be quite competent in melee and relish it in fact if he wants to.
Its not just about spells being better then [not spells], which is true, if you go the fighter heavy route it means you have to wait even LONGER before you get levels in EK, and longer for EK to start paying off.
And yet with these restrictions, the EK becomes a class that is overpowered... Interesting. Pehaps it doesn't need synergystic abilities because it works as it is, and if they synergized they would have to be downgraded.
The issue is the way bonded items, feats, arcane magic and combat works, using one class ability negates the other. This is the same fundamentally flawed design the monk has, where using his greater maneuverability negates his other major class feature, flurry. These things should synergize with each other to create a distinct class ability, not work against each other to hold a character concept back.Again, they are only able to match up at very high levels. That's not good design. How about they are allowed to be average on the power scale for 90% of the game, instead of low to pathetic for 60% of the game (more than that when you consider how few games get past 15th level. I've never played in one.), average for 15% and then above average for the last 25%? Thats simply poor design.
In my perfect EK, I'd lower the caster prerequisites, raise the fighter / melee prerequisites, allow a fighter mage to use magic to allow him to participate in fights, and lower spellcasting progression while adding more fighter type stuffs (more feats? Or maybe improve the ability to use your spells in melee through armor use bonuses or action economy?). I'd also create spells, maybe even class specific spells, that make sense for a caster that is primarily interested in improving their relevence in close combat.
A class that is nothing but a burden on a party until 12th+ level is absolutely useless to the majority of gamers.
I think we are talking circles arround eachother arguing the same point. I will say that I don't think a EK is a burden at low levels. Before level 6, he is pretty much in line with other wizards. 1 Fighter level doesn't hurt much. Its lvl 7, when he first takes EK, that he starts to become a burden, and stays there for 4 lvls. Before then, he is just not the class that you want to play, being an almost full wizard and not a melee class at all.
I personally prefer the W8/F2/EK10 build. 9th level spells, 16 BAB, access to 12th lvl fighter feats (GWS), an extra point of damage form arcane strike, the EK capstone, but loss of 2 feats and 1 point of hit+damage from fighter, and 6 average HP. My problem with my build is that he is too good, and not ballanced against other classes
A good build I'd agree. My issue with the EK is really I don't even want to be a wizard. Kind of sucks to have to do 5 levels as it is so 8 is too much for. As for the EK capstone, I don't much care for it. I'd rather use my swift action with arcane strike for +4 damage every time I attack. Not that casting spell on crit as swift action is bad it's just I probably wouldn't have spells memorized to use with it. I'd go more buff and utility type spells. That's just my preference for martial style caster who can buff himself instead of relying others to do so and able to hold his own next to the fighter in combat.
Its not just about spells being better then [not spells], which is true, if you go the fighter heavy route it means you have to wait even LONGER before you get levels in EK, and longer for EK to start paying off.
This is only true if you focus more on the wizard side of the EK (F 1/Wiz 9/EK 10) which is considered the optimal build. If you focus more on the fighter side of the EK (F5/Wiz 5 EK 10), then you normally want to get into hand-to-hand (unless you specialize in ranged combat aka archer). A lot of players shun the latter make-up because they feel spell levels trump melee. But if you want to be melee oriented, 9th level spells don't offer much for you because very few 9th level spells actually buff you for melee combat. There aren't many more 8th level spells that buff for melee either. In fact, most buff spells are level 6 or less unless you prefer the polymorph style spells aka Giant Form's I & II for instance. The high-level EK can be quite competent in melee and relish it in fact if he wants to.
I would still get into EK as fast as possible in either form. I just don't see any way around the low-level dilemma.
EDIT: BTW, its more than just the level make-up that distinguishes the two paths. It's your ability array, feat selection, spell selection, and magic item selection as well.
For instance: In the melee oriented build, I would get just enough INT to cast my spells and would put very little focus on spells that require saves. You don't need to worry about your INT when you plan on casting spells like haste, displacement, spider climb, etc. You can even go so far as to rely on an INT boosting item to cover this if you want. The Transmutation school also comes in handy for the EK to reduce MAD, in getting a +2 by Wiz 5 to one of your physical stats.
|
|
I think we are talking circles arround eachother arguing the same point. I will say that I don't think a EK is a burden at low levels. Before level 6, he is pretty much in line with other wizards. 1 Fighter level doesn't hurt much. Its lvl 7, when he first takes EK, that he starts to...
Ok, then here is my arguement in a nutshell:
The Eldritch Knight doesn't do what it is (ostensibly?) meant to do - allow a player to create a character that synergizes arcane magic with melee combat - because it in no way allows the rules governing combat and arcane casting to be used as a combined whole during gameplay. It also suffers from severe balancing issues - below average to extremely low ability to measure up as a contributing member of the group through low - mid levels, then ramping up (due to spellcaster levels, so not on the level of a wizard, but the power graph follows the same exponential shape) at high levels - but even at high levels the spellcasting and combat always interfere with each other rather than synergize. Even the capstone ability does this.
I think the reason people see EK as "A caster with some extra BAB" is that, if you look at the pre-requesites, that's exactly what it is.
EK is a wizard that also happens to be able to use lots of weapons.
Arcane Archer is a martial class that has a handful of cantrips.
The reason that Swiftblade was brought up isn't because it advances casting and martial use, it's because it's requirements are built towards mixed play between fighting and magic, and because the abilities the class gets are all built towards buffing and then attacking. It's a fighter/mage, not a fighter//mage, not a fighter with a little mage, not a mage with a little fighter.
I think we are talking circles arround eachother arguing the same point. I will say that I don't think a EK is a burden at low levels. Before level 6, he is pretty much in line with other wizards. 1 Fighter level doesn't hurt much. Its lvl 7, when he first takes EK, that he starts to...Ok, then here is my arguement in a nutshell:
The Eldritch Knight doesn't do what it is (ostensibly?) meant to do - allow a player to create a character that synergizes arcane magic with melee combat - because it in no way allows the rules governing combat and arcane casting to be used as a combined whole during gameplay. It also suffers from severe balancing issues - below average to extremely low ability to measure up as a contributing member of the group through low - mid levels, then ramping up (due to spellcaster levels, so not on the level of a wizard, but the power graph follows the same exponential shape) at high levels - but even at high levels the spellcasting and combat always interfere with each other rather than synergize. Even the capstone ability does this.
I disagree with your assesment of high level play. This is because the Eldrich Knight has access to mage buffs that are normally scoffed at. In the hands of someone with decent HP, AC, BAB, and strength, they are very powerful. The Form spells aren't great for a wizard, but the EK loves them. Wizards try to not get into combat in the first place, so they try to not get use out of spells like displacement, blur, or mirror image, even if they have them. The EK can utalize these far better than a wizard can. This allows him to buff IMO better than a Cleric at high levels.
I agree that the EK's abilities interphere a little. Their capstone is IMO worthless, as I would much rather have +4 damage every hit than a free spell that has to wory about spell failure. EK work poorly as evokers, which is what many people want from the class, because they have to split their time between fighting melee and using damage dealing spells.
|
The bard actually already does this. Adding more spells to compliment melee fighting to the bard spell list (which, I believe, is something we're STRONGLY considering for the Advanced Player's Guide) would probably solve this problem... but probably not for true powergamers, I guess...
Not too surprisingly, this was the approach taken (more or less) by WOTC -- Complete Adventurer had a collection of spells for buffing the combat prowess of arcane casters (insightful feint, critical strike, swift invisibility, etc.). My sorcerer/rogue/arcane stalker used critical strike extensively.