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.
The problem with the buffs is the time taken to cast them. You have to know the fight is coming, and get ready for the fight that comes to you. For example, bull's strength is great, but if you are surprised by an attack it's not that good to you; it doesn't last long enough to keep it around all the time, and it takes to long to cast. A spell that lasts one round per level and is a swift action to cast is easily as useful. A variation on Quickened Spell would be handy here - 'Quick & Short', so you get a faster cast and a shorter duration for a less extreme spell level gain.
|
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...This allows him to buff IMO better than a Cleric at high levels.
But then he's not fighting. I don't disagree with you on the beauty of arcane buffs, I loved mirror image on my one gish that got above 10th level in play. But using the standard action to cast round/lvl buffs means by the time you enter combat, it's over. The core of the EK's problems are actions. My gish couldn't enter combat until she got 4th level spells, and the gloriousness that is Greater Mirror image. Before that I'd have mage armor up all day, and put mirror image up - and the rogue, fighter and sorceror were already mopping up. PLaying like that is using first your wizard levels....then using your fighter levels - again, there's no synergy.
I would rather be limited to 4th level arcane spells and be able to cast them as move actions, eventually swift actions or channeled through weapons and fight than get 9th level spells, 17 BaB and not be able to enter combat without getting squished until the 4th round of combat. I don't see a combat based spell above fourth level I particularly care about.
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...
I've heard that said - it's never been my desire, except possibly the ability to add energy damage to melee hits as some sort of ability. Any other warrior mage archetype lovers out there that want to be an evoker in their off time?
|
|
The problem with the buffs is the time taken to cast them. You have to know the fight is coming, and get ready for the fight that comes to you. For example, bull's strength is great, but if you are surprised by an attack it's not that good to you; it doesn't last long enough to keep it around all the time, and it takes to long to cast. A spell that lasts one round per level and is a swift action to cast is easily as useful. A variation on Quickened Spell would be handy here - 'Quick & Short', so you get a faster cast and a shorter duration for a less extreme spell level gain.
Another solution might be the ability to cast personal spells on yourself at the "next step" up in duration counts - choose one such buff spell every 4 levels (max 3 over your carreer) that have their duration shoved one "step up" in duration. Bob the ArcaneWarrior chooses Shield at first level. It now lasts 10 min / level. If they stack, he chooses it at 5th level and it now lasts 1 hr / level. Suddenly, Shield is up all day, along with mage armor.
let's say at third, 7th and 10 you can choose a spell that gets a swift action casting time - you could shorten the casting time of mirror image to a swift action.
Allowing spells like shocking grasp, vampiric touch or chill touch to be channeled through weapons is an option. All of these are low level spells - sharply decreased casting ability for such synergy in spellcasting would suit me fine.
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.
+1. In fact, without anything other than the capstone, I would consider it a weak option to combine Evocation and melee. Only one of the touch attack spells, shocking grasp, is evocation, with the rest, ghoul touch , chill touch, touch of idiocy, vampiric touch, contagion and bestow curse being either Enchantment or Necromancy. But the EK sometimes has problems using these spells right now, as swinging a sword means that touch spells can't go off unless channelled through a spell storing weapon.
Ideally, a feature in the early levels of EK to allow touch spells to be cast without provoking, and delivered through a melee weapon, would be pretty solid.
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...This allows him to buff IMO better than a Cleric at high levels.But then he's not fighting. I don't disagree with you on the beauty of arcane buffs, I loved mirror image on my one gish that got above 10th level in play. But using the standard action to cast round/lvl buffs means by the time you enter combat, it's over. The core of the EK's problems are actions. My gish couldn't enter combat until she got 4th level spells, and the gloriousness that is Greater Mirror image. Before that I'd have mage armor up all day, and put mirror image up - and the rogue, fighter and sorceror were already mopping up. PLaying like that is using first your wizard levels....then using your fighter levels - again, there's no synergy.
I would rather be limited to 4th level arcane spells and be able to cast them as move actions, eventually swift actions or channeled through weapons and fight than get 9th level spells, 17 BaB and not be able to enter combat without getting squished until the 4th round of combat. I don't see a combat based spell above fourth level I particularly care about.
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...I've heard that said - it's never been my desire, except possibly the ability to add energy damage to melee hits as some sort of ability. Any other warrior mage archetype lovers out there that want to be an evoker in their off time?
I think there is also a huge difference in play style. In my groups, its not uncommon for combats to last more than 10 rounds, so combat buffs are great. I know this is not the case for other groups.
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.+1. In fact, without anything other than the capstone, I would consider it a weak option to combine Evocation and melee. Only one of the touch attack spells, shocking grasp, is evocation, with the rest, ghoul touch , chill touch, touch of idiocy, vampiric touch, contagion and bestow curse being either Enchantment or Necromancy. But the EK sometimes has problems using these spells right now, as swinging a sword means that touch spells can't go off unless channelled through a spell storing weapon.
Ideally, a feature in the early levels of EK to allow touch spells to be cast without provoking, and delivered through a melee weapon, would be pretty solid.
Duskblade solved this rather nicely - you could channel spells through your weapon as part of an attack.
Honestly, Duskblade was a pretty good warrior/mage. If you want to play a warrior/mage type from the start, I'd say go with that.
|
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.+1. In fact, without anything other than the capstone, I would consider it a weak option to combine Evocation and melee. Only one of the touch attack spells, shocking grasp, is evocation, with the rest, ghoul touch , chill touch, touch of idiocy, vampiric touch, contagion and bestow curse being either Enchantment or Necromancy. But the EK sometimes has problems using these spells right now, as swinging a sword means that touch spells can't go off unless channelled through a spell storing weapon.
Ideally, a feature in the early levels of EK to allow touch spells to be cast without provoking, and delivered through a melee weapon, would be pretty solid.
Duskblade solved this rather nicely - you could channel spells through your weapon as part of an attack.
Honestly, Duskblade was a pretty good warrior/mage. If you want to play a warrior/mage type from the start, I'd say go with that.
I think a quicken-spell ability is better because of the flexibility. A duskblade type can cast his spell, and still attack. Another build might use the quicken spell to buff himself, and then wade into combat. I never liked the duskblade because it was damage-centric. The lack of utility spells usually prevented me from seriously looking at it. That why I always wanted to see a duskblade and a different form of magic warriors. But 2 base classes is probably too much.
|
|
I think a quicken-spell ability is better because of the flexibility. A duskblade type can cast his spell, and still attack. Another build might use the quicken spell to buff himself, and then wade into combat. I never liked the duskblade because it was damage-centric. The lack of utility spells usually prevented me from seriously looking at it. That why I always wanted to see a duskblade and a different form of magic warriors. But 2 base classes is probably too much.
You can have both in one class, like ranger combat paths. :)
Maybe you can cast in heavy armor and you channel spells through your weapon, or you don't gain the improvements to arcane casting failure due to armor, but gain quickened spells.
Honestly, Duskblade was a pretty good warrior/mage. If you want to play a warrior/mage type from the start, I'd say go with that.
Back in 3.5 days, if you have duskblade and Bo9S classes, no one would want to play a pure, single class fighter.
That's the whole problem, at least in my group.
Back in 3.5 days, if you have duskblade and Bo9S classes, no one would want to play a pure, single class fighter.
That's the whole problem, at least in my group.
(As a parenthesis, it always amuses me to hear about D&D3.5 in the past tense, like if it was long gone...)
That might be true with many groups, and not only with the Duskblade.
I think the issue with all the additional classes is that they divert players from the core ones.
I don't know if that is an actual problem or symptom.
I am not even sure it's because these other classes are more powerful than the core ones.
I think that they are attractive just because they are new, and they propose a new perspective to the game.
It is a paradox, as I think that they are actually even more trapped into stereotypes.
I strongly believe more in a solid background and maybe class variants than in funky classes to make an interesting character.
Fortunately, in my campaign setting, the world is built on the concepts and casts of the base core classes, which fit better in the traditional folklore, so players naturally go towards them, which avoids weird groups of missmatched classes.
|
|
Honestly, Duskblade was a pretty good warrior/mage. If you want to play a warrior/mage type from the start, I'd say go with that.Back in 3.5 days, if you have duskblade and Bo9S classes, no one would want to play a pure, single class fighter.
That's the whole problem, at least in my group.
this says more about the pure single classed 3.5 fighter than anything.
this says more about the pure single classed 3.5 fighter than anything.
I mean,really, these kind of threads can go on and on and on forever.
Last time I checked the wotc splat books, there is a base class which has paladin/ranger-like arcane spell progression, d10 hit dice, full BAB and a couple of special abiltiy. It's called hexblade.And it sucks,most people would just do 3 levels dipping and leave.
I don't think people in these threads want another hexblade, they want another duskblade.
Just ask youself and your fellow gamers if a fighter(be it 3.5 or Pathfinder version) and a duskblade stand in front of you, which one would you like to play?
The most funny thing is, d8 hit dice, 3/4 BAB , 6 level arcane spells, can cast in light armor. Those might be some people's ideal fighter/mage. And Pathfinder Bard actually fits.
this says more about the pure single classed 3.5 fighter than anything.
Honestly, Duskblade was a pretty good warrior/mage. If you want to play a warrior/mage type from the start, I'd say go with that.Back in 3.5 days, if you have duskblade and Bo9S classes, no one would want to play a pure, single class fighter.
That's the whole problem, at least in my group.
Exactly.
I mean,really, these kind of threads can go on and on and on forever.
Last time I checked the wotc splat books, there is a base class which has paladin/ranger-like arcane spell progression, d10 hit dice, full BAB and a couple of special abiltiy. It's called hexblade.
And it sucks,most people would just do 3 levels dipping and leave.I don't think people in these threads want another hexblade, they want another duskblade.
Just ask youself and your fellow gamers if a fighter(be it 3.5 or Pathfinder version) and a duskblade stand in front of you, which one would you like to play?The most funny thing is, d8 hit dice, 3/4 BAB , 6 level arcane spells, can cast in light armor. Those might be some people's ideal fighter/mage. And Pathfinder Bard actually fits.
Here's the really funny thing.
Ask yourself and your fellow gamers what you wouldn't take over a straight fighter in 3.5. The list is hilariously small. CAd samurai, I suppose. Maybe a monk or soulknife, though those are at least more interesting if less powerful.
Fighter was, ironically enough, the class that was one of the worst at fighting in 3.5. Of course they chose Duskblade and warblade over it. They'd also choose barbarians, scouts, rangers, psychic warriors, melee warlocks, rogues, clerics, favored souls, battle sorcerers, etc, etc, etc, over a fighter.
The issue with bard is that it has all the "I'm a bard" baggage. The spells are very illusion/enchantment based. It has all that perform nonsense. It's abilities are all based on charisma. Certainly the bard can be a good fighter/mage, but that doesn't mean every fighter/mage has to be a bard.
Duskblade wasn't super awesome stupendously powerful. Fighter was just terrible.
And in my group we don't see that as a problem.Back in 3.5 days, if you have duskblade and Bo9S classes, no one would want to play a pure, single class fighter.
That's the whole problem, at least in my group.
Same.
People on these forums have thrown a lot of fits whenever someone wants to add stuff to the fighter. They want fighter to remain the simple, stay here and just full attack class.
Ok.
But when someone else makes a class that doesn't just stand there and full attack, you remove any rights to be upset about it. You told us to find a new class. We did.
If someone wants a super easy full attack class, fighter is right there. For those that want to be more then a standard bowman or pikeman, there's other options. Duskblade lets you play a fighter/mage right from level one instead of waiting until level 10. Tome of Battle lets you play as a more fantastic hero of legend as you go up in level.
If your characters aren't playing a single class pure fighter, the issue isn't with the other classes. It's because they want to do more then just charge an full attack. Having options is fun!
|
Funny story...the most broken character I have ever played was a fighter. A straight up fighter...course I was an uber charger...but every fight through the module ended in 1 round basically. The boss at the end won init and destroyed my weapon. With my backup non magical weapon, I still managed to 1 shot the boss. The whole experience was rather lame all around. We learned a lot from that game...mostly what NOT to do in game design.
Funny story...the most broken character I have ever played was a fighter. A straight up fighter...course I was an uber charger...but every fight through the module ended in 1 round basically. The boss at the end won init and destroyed my weapon. With my backup non magical weapon, I still managed to 1 shot the boss. The whole experience was rather lame all around. We learned a lot from that game...mostly what NOT to do in game design.
In the end, however, you were still just a one trick pony.
That's what fighters more or less become. They have one trick - typically charge an full attack ( which was indeed your trick ;) ) and that's all they can do, ever.
|
|
Funny story...the most broken character I have ever played was a fighter. A straight up fighter...course I was an uber charger...but every fight through the module ended in 1 round basically. The boss at the end won init and destroyed my weapon. With my backup non magical weapon, I still managed to 1 shot the boss. The whole experience was rather lame all around. We learned a lot from that game...mostly what NOT to do in game design.In the end, however, you were still just a one trick pony.
That's what fighters more or less become. They have one trick - typically charge an full attack ( which was indeed your trick ;) ) and that's all they can do, ever.
Which is rather poor game design IMHO. The character was overpowered and underpowered at the same time...most importantly, the character made the game no fun in all sorts of ways. The DM because nothing he did mattered. The players because they just stood and watched...and me because I got to press the same button every combat.
Which is rather poor game design IMHO. The character was overpowered and underpowered at the same time...most importantly, the character made the game no fun in all sorts of ways. The DM because nothing he did mattered. The players because they just stood and watched...and me because I got to press the same button every combat.Funny story...the most broken character I have ever played was a fighter. A straight up fighter...course I was an uber charger...but every fight through the module ended in 1 round basically. The boss at the end won init and destroyed my weapon. With my backup non magical weapon, I still managed to 1 shot the boss. The whole experience was rather lame all around. We learned a lot from that game...mostly what NOT to do in game design.In the end, however, you were still just a one trick pony.
That's what fighters more or less become. They have one trick - typically charge an full attack ( which was indeed your trick ;) ) and that's all they can do, ever.
Eh, I was never a fan of charger type builds. Then again, I don't like wizards, so the other end of the scale isn't much better :p
Sorcerers, factotums, and warblade/swordsages - those are my favorites ;). I like the third tier best.
this says more about the pure single classed 3.5 fighter than anything.I mean,really, these kind of threads can go on and on and on forever.
Last time I checked the wotc splat books, there is a base class which has paladin/ranger-like arcane spell progression, d10 hit dice, full BAB and a couple of special abiltiy. It's called hexblade.
And it sucks,most people would just do 3 levels dipping and leave.I don't think people in these threads want another hexblade, they want another duskblade.
Just ask youself and your fellow gamers if a fighter(be it 3.5 or Pathfinder version) and a duskblade stand in front of you, which one would you like to play?The most funny thing is, d8 hit dice, 3/4 BAB , 6 level arcane spells, can cast in light armor. Those might be some people's ideal fighter/mage. And Pathfinder Bard actually fits.
The overall concept of the hexblade wasnt the problem, it was the execution. The class itself was not well made. A hexblade with that basic structure could be made well, the class features just have to be done better. Example is the home brew iron mage class. Which has a huge amount of potential.
As for the bard, I dont know why people refuse to actually read the numerous explanations of why it is not fitting the bill. The bard is not designed to be a fighter, it is a buffing skill based illusionist/echanter. That is not what you need in a fighter mage. The basic structure is fine. 3/4 bab, d8 hd and 6 levels of spells, that right, but the songs, bardic knowledge, bardic songs, long skill list, focus in enchantment and illusion spells, and limited weapon profficiencies is the problem. These are things that DONT fit a fighter mage. Just about every detail past the basic structure of the class.
I would like to present an example of what people are doing when they say the bard fits the concept of a fighter mage. Imagine a game in which the paladin does not exist, but the ranger does.
Person A: "you know what i'd like, a paladin class, a holy righteous warrior that lays the hurt on the bad guys."
Person B: "So what like a d10 full bab class that can caste some divine spells?"
Person A: "Yea thats what i mean"
Person B: "Well great, we have the ranger for that, go ahead and use that"
Person A: "Um, well the ranger has this hunter/tracker woodsy feel. I'm looking more for a holy knight of wrathful whoopass that smacks down evil doers"
Person B: "A ranger could do that, just pick the right feats, and make sure you have a favored enemy for the bad guys. And it has a full bab, so you can definately be knight like, just get an animal companion you can ride at level 4."
Person A: "But favored enemy doesnt really fit, i want to strike down evil, not goblins or orcs or something. I want it to be a force for good, where rangers arent really good or evil, they can be any. I want more of a cleric fighter mix then a druid fighter you know?"
Person B: "So what you want some kind of gestault fighter cleric that is way overpowered? That is just rediculous. The ranger is plenty strong you shouldnt want more then that"
Person A: "It's not about strength it's about focus, the ranger is into tracking, and has it's combat styles, it's spells are nature geared, which are all cool for a ranger, but it's not what I'm looking for."
Person B: "Well what if we just added a few cleric spells to the ranger list, then it would be more cleric like and cover what you want right?"
Person A: "...."
And Scene....
This I think at least is a pretty good comparison to what people are saying when they say the bard is a good fighter mage. It isnt, its a sorceror rogue, not fighter wizard. It isnt built for that, it has a different focus, and trying to shoehorn it into a style that it was never meant for will only end up with sub par characters. For some people that is good enough, for many it is not. We want a class actually designed from the ground up to be a fighter mage.
Spells should primarily come from Abjuration (protection), Transmutation (buffs), Necromancy(debuffs) and Evocation (blow stuff up). It's class features should provide ways to enhance it's combat abilities through magic. Whether it's sacking spell slots to boost combat, casting through attacks, or something no one has thought of yet, it is a neccessary part of such a base class. And it should probably have a much shorter skill list and fewer skills per level then a bard, in exchange for martial weapon profficiency, and mossibly medium/heavy armor.
The problem with the buffs is the time taken to cast them. You have to know the fight is coming, and get ready for the fight that comes to you. For example, bull's strength is great, but if you are surprised by an attack it's not that good to you; it doesn't last long enough to keep it around all the time, and it takes to long to cast. A spell that lasts one round per level and is a swift action to cast is easily as useful. A variation on Quickened Spell would be handy here - 'Quick & Short', so you get a faster cast and a shorter duration for a less extreme spell level gain.
This is not any more of a problem to the eldritch knight than it is for any primary spellcaster. If you know what you're facing in advance, you'll have time to prepare by casting your buff spells. If you don't know what you are facing or are surprised, you have the ability to react in the same fashion as a primary spellcaster. I don't see the eldritch knight not being able to melee in "every situation effectively" being a problem. The fact that he has the tools to go either way is his asset.
Jess Door and others peg the main dilemma for the class for me:
levels 1-6, the character feels like a wizard who can fight less effectively than a bard or cleric
levels 7-9, the character feels like an under par warrior with spells
levels 10+, the character improves in its intended purpose nicely
Regarding the Bard issue: I think different people have different ideas of what they want their Arcane Warrior to be. If you want an Arcane Warrior focus on buffs and battlefield control--which is actually a very effective kind of Arcane Warrior--Bards work very, very well. It's for the people who what "Guy who shoots lightning out of his sword"--also a fun and valid Arcane Warrior concept--that the Bard doesn't work for.
EK DOES do the latter, but it takes awhile to get there as has been lengthily discussed. That's the real problem, I am starting to see.
Most PrCs are designed so that you cannot qualify for them any earlier than 7th level. I think that's probably wise. But I wonder--as mentioned earlier--if the specific requirements are the problem. Requiring 3rd level arcane spells forces you to be a mostly-mage with a little warrior. While you should be able to do that IF you want to, it shouldn't be the ONLY path into an EK.
Likewise, I also have issue with the "proficient in every martial weapon" requirement. I think someone should be able to make a cool mage monk if they wanted, but EK doesn't allow that. I'd also love to be able to make a Bard that levels into EK (your HD go up, you keep your spells while gaining access to Fighter feats), but you are forced to dip into Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian to make it happen.
EK forces a very specific kind of multiclass build--and I think that's where a lot of peoples' discomfort comes in, because that means if they are starting a game from level 1, they have to live for 7 levels through a possibly unwanted, unfun, very prescribed set of multiclass levels.
And for low level campaigns, it's pointless to even try for EK, meaning you're SOL if you want to play a Blasty Arcane Warrior. The only option left in that case is straight up multiclassing. While this CAN work, caster levels suffer. I think you COULD make this work with feats like Practiced Spellcaster, but these feats don't exist in core. I am VERY curious to see what feats appear in the APG and see how this might help the situation.
It's still a shame we don't have more core options for multiclass mages (at least with Arcane Strike and Arcane Armor training there's more than there was in 3.5 core), but there's nothing to be done about that now. Complaining won't change what's printed in the rulebook, but we can try to offer solutions for people who houserule and hope that such things are also considered for future supplements.
Regarding the Bard issue: I think different people have different ideas of what they want their Arcane Warrior to be. If you want an Arcane Warrior focus on buffs and battlefield control--which is actually a very effective kind of Arcane Warrior--Bards work very, very well. It's for the people who what "Guy who shoots lightning out of his sword"--also a fun and valid Arcane Warrior concept--that the Bard doesn't work for.
How exactly is focusing on buffs and battlefield control an arcane warrior? This is what straight mages do for the most part. If you want to buff and battlefield control, just play a straight wizard, they will be dramatically better at it.
For me at least when I say arcane warrior, I mean someone who uses magic to augment his martial abilities. It's not just shoot lightning out of my sword, but also perhaps hit someone with a debuff then go in for the kill. Obviously buffs are still important, but I am more concerned with buffs that enhance my own abilities (enlarge person for instance) then i am with mass buffs like the bard's song.
|
|
This is not any more of a problem to the eldritch knight than it is for any primary spellcaster.
That's the point. Eldritch Knight as written doesn't let you be a warrior that uses arcane magic to enable him to fight well - he's a weakened primary spellcaster for a couple rounds, then a buffed weakened meleer.
|
|
I think what most people are saying is they want Eldrich Knight to be like Arcane Archer... Reachable by lots of fighter OR wizard levels. Change the entry requirement to BAB +5 and 1st level arcane spells and all martial weapons. Now a fighter 5 / Wizard 1; or fighter 4 wizard 2; or fighter 3 wizard 4 can all qualify. The issue is simply being unable to be anything but a slightly-nerfed primary caster who (unless mega-buffed and really high level), cannot be front-line. Some level of ignoring armor check would be nice as well, but that's rewriting the class entirely.
This is not any more of a problem to the eldritch knight than it is for any primary spellcaster. If you know what you're facing in advance, you'll have time to prepare by casting your buff spells. If you don't know what you are facing or are surprised, you have the ability to react in the same fashion as a primary spellcaster. I don't see the eldritch knight not being able to melee in "every situation effectively" being a problem. The fact that he has the tools to go either way is his asset.
Problem is, the EK is NOT as good at being a primary caster as a primary caster, because he is several levels behind. He is going to be in melee more than any other arcane caster, so it IS going to have a bigger effect on him. Ergo, it is more of a problem for him than it is for a primary spellcaster..
|
|
Funny story...the most broken character I have ever played was a fighter. A straight up fighter...course I was an uber charger...but every fight through the module ended in 1 round basically. The boss at the end won init and destroyed my weapon. With my backup non magical weapon, I still managed to 1 shot the boss. The whole experience was rather lame all around. We learned a lot from that game...mostly what NOT to do in game design.
The DM never thought to have you charge an illusion into a trap?
How exactly is focusing on buffs and battlefield control an arcane warrior? This is what straight mages do for the most part. If you want to buff and battlefield control, just play a straight wizard, they will be dramatically better at it.
For me at least when I say arcane warrior, I mean someone who uses magic to augment his martial abilities. It's not just shoot lightning out of my sword, but also perhaps hit someone with a debuff then go in for the kill. Obviously buffs are still important, but I am more concerned with buffs that enhance my own abilities (enlarge person for instance) then i am with mass buffs like the bard's song.
The Bard's spell list has a number of useful Buff spells that do exactly what you say are important for an Arcane Warrior--boosting your own martial abilities (Blur, Heroism, Good Hope, etc.). The Bard also is good at debuffing enemies not only with spells (Sleep, Confusion, Song of Discord) but also performances (Dirge of Doom). The Bard can perform a number of roles in melee combat--confuses and weaken large groups of enemies before moving in for the kill, or staying close to his front-liner allies, boost them as a whole with Bardic Performance, and then work with the party to take them down. Bards also make good mage-attackers, because they can cast Dimension Door and then engage spellcasters in melee. Yes, other Arcane Warriors can do this too, but it's not a tactic that's denied to the Bard, and it's something they can do without dipping into other classes.
The Bard is also the only arcane caster with Cure spells, making her able to fix herself up and keep on fighting.
The difference between that and a full mage class is that the mage is more likely to hang back and cast, the Bard swaps between magic and fighting. Which is a perfectly fine arcane warrior to me.
You do not have to like it personally. But your idea of what an Arcane Warrior is no more "correct" than mine.
I am NOT arguing that is the only type of arcane warrior people should play or want to play. And the rest of my post clearly addresses the problems that I think exist with the Eldritch Knights and multiclassing options. And I am in complete agreement with you that there should be more ways to be able to build an Arcane Warrior than just using the Bard.
I am simply saying that the Bard does work for certain players' concepts, and there is no reason to dismiss those players just because their preferences do not match yours.
|
|
I am simply saying that the Bard does work for certain players' concepts, and there is no reason to dismiss those players just because their preferences do not match yours.
This is correct - and a little ironic in the thread because we're being told that our desire for an arcane warrior that isn't bard flavored and is significantly helpful in a party at more than the top 25% of levels is a ridiculous request that only optimizers that really want overpowered gestalt characters would even ask for. :)
How exactly is focusing on buffs and battlefield control an arcane warrior? This is what straight mages do for the most part. If you want to buff and battlefield control, just play a straight wizard, they will be dramatically better at it.
For me at least when I say arcane warrior, I mean someone who uses magic to augment his martial abilities. It's not just shoot lightning out of my sword, but also perhaps hit someone with a debuff then go in for the kill. Obviously buffs are still important, but I am more concerned with buffs that enhance my own abilities (enlarge person for instance) then i am with mass buffs like the bard's song.
The Bard's spell list has a number of useful Buff spells that do exactly what you say are important for an Arcane Warrior--boosting your own martial abilities (Blur, Heroism, Good Hope, etc.). The Bard also is good at debuffing enemies not only with spells (Sleep, Confusion, Song of Discord) but also performances (Dirge of Doom). The Bard can perform a number of roles in melee combat--confuses and weaken large groups of enemies before moving in for the kill, or staying close to his front-liner allies, boost them as a whole with Bardic Performance, and then work with the party to take them down. Bards also make good mage-attackers, because they can cast Dimension Door and then engage spellcasters in melee. Yes, other Arcane Warriors can do this too, but it's not a tactic that's denied to the Bard, and it's something they can do without dipping into other classes.
The Bard is also the only arcane caster with Cure spells, making her able to fix herself up and keep on fighting.
The difference between that and a full mage class is that the mage is more likely to hang back and cast, the Bard swaps between magic and fighting. Which is a perfectly fine arcane warrior to me.
You do not have to like it personally. But your idea of what an Arcane Warrior is no more "correct" than mine.
I am NOT arguing that is...
I am one of those who feels that the bard does make a useful arcane warrior. My hope is the APG has some feats and spells to enhance the bard as a arcane warrior.
This is correct - and a little ironic in the thread because we're being told that our desire for an arcane warrior that isn't bard flavored and is significantly helpful in a party at more than the top 25% of levels is a ridiculous request that only optimizers that really want overpowered gestalt characters would even ask for. :)I am simply saying that the Bard does work for certain players' concepts, and there is no reason to dismiss those players just because their preferences do not match yours.
Both comments are so, so true in this thread it's not even (or rather I do find it so) funny!
My problem w/a Bard class (straight) to accomplish this is that I don't see the fighter/mage(I HATE "gish" myself for many of the same reasons presented by the developer, but mostly ... I'm NOT talking about githiyanki even remotely!) hopping around the battle-field, SINGING as he fights or casts spells.
Elements that do fit well: 3/4 bab, hd, limited caster for max spell access, spontaneous casting.
Everything else simply FAILS to address where the fighter/mage should be (maybe the saves can pass ok ... mostly - 2 good, but Fort, not Ref}
Too many skills, and the spell list isn't really fitting.
The bardsong sucks for the concept, BUT the idea of being "inspirational" in general is useful and *might* work more if it was along the lines of "field commands" rather than tied to music, instruments, or any of the other baggage. It's really a useful mechanical thing - but the method of execution FAILS for the fighter/mage concept.
Only exception to the "music" piece is the counter-song stuff, BUT he's a mage anyway - should be able to counter-spell on his own (ie: not rely on singing to do so).
If you could address/fix these things, the class of "bard" would work out fine. As it stands - CRAP for me and a few others in really doing what they should.
Hell, nearly everyone's already said the "skeleton" of bard is ok ...
The fact that it keeps inspiring "A BARD can work fine" is just ... funny!
|
|
Few bards sing anymore; oratory and dancing are generally vastly preffered. So if you want to inspire via field commands, use oratory and saying you are issuing commands. Pathfinder bards do have most of what you're looking for; the EK as he stands does eventually, but doesn't really come into it until past where PFS and most campaigns end.
Hmm ... Bard as Warlord... *ponders*
-TG
This is not any more of a problem to the eldritch knight than it is for any primary spellcaster. If you know what you're facing in advance, you'll have time to prepare by casting your buff spells. If you don't know what you are facing or are surprised, you have the ability to react in the same fashion as a primary spellcaster. I don't see the eldritch knight not being able to melee in "every situation effectively" being a problem. The fact that he has the tools to go either way is his asset.Problem is, the EK is NOT as good at being a primary caster as a primary caster, because he is several levels behind. He is going to be in melee more than any other arcane caster, so it IS going to have a bigger effect on him. Ergo, it is more of a problem for him than it is for a primary spellcaster..
But he doesn't HAVE to be. He still can fall back on what a primary arcane caster can do if he must. He is not going to have the problems in melee that a primary caster is because he is better equipped to handle melee situations. I just built a PC up to level 7 for fun (F1,W5,EK1). What I'm finding is that a PC going toward EK is better off finding out how to contribute in melee other than dominating with pure damage. He just can't compete in this particular area. But he can certainly hang out in melee with his fellow fighter.
yeah, the bard with a few attack spells works great as a F/M really. Just use bardic performance as "mystic" chants or the like. Also they make a niffy blade dancer as well.
Sadly to many folks get hung up on "It's a bard it's SINGING!" when in fact your "bard" can have noting to do with music at all.
I can see the bard legitimately being played as more of a "Marshal" (Mini's Handbook class). Sure, your ability is printed as "Bardic Performance", that doesn't mean you have to think of it as such. You could think of it as "Rally Troops" or "Drill March" or "Soldiers Chant" or some other military sounding title. If you wanted access to more weapons, why not eliminate "Bardic Knowledge" and maybe a couple other things like "Countersong" for simple and martial weapon proficiency?
I do think the bard could make a good basis for an alternative F/Mu that's inspired by the Marshal class. That's something I'd like to play.
Again, people here are missing something.
Nobody doubts that a bard can make a good type of F/M.
But what we're saying, is that bard shouldn't be the only type of F/M
Developer
|
I haven't read all the pages in the middle, just the first page where there was a question of whether or not you can cast a spell while holding a bonded greatsword in one hand without making a check to do so. I'm not sure if this has already been said yet, but...
My ruling: yes, of course you can cast a spell without making a check. The rules: "If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell." (emphasis mine)
You only need the weapon "in hand." If you needed to "wield" your two-handed weapons with two hands even while casting, then you would not be able to cast spells without making a check while wielding a quarterstaff. It's a two-handed weapon too, you know. Does Gandalf really need to make those concentration checks? Really?
So go ahead and take your greatsword. It's no different than a quarterstaff.
|
|
I haven't read all the pages in the middle, just the first page where there was a question of whether or not you can cast a spell while holding a bonded greatsword in one hand without making a check to do so. I'm not sure if this has already been said yet, but...
My ruling: yes, of course you can cast a spell without making a check. The rules: "If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell." (emphasis mine)
You only need the weapon "in hand." If you needed to "wield" your two-handed weapons with two hands even while casting, then you would not be able to cast spells without making a check while wielding a quarterstaff. It's a two-handed weapon too, you know. Does Gandalf really need to make those concentration checks? Really?
So go ahead and take your greatsword. It's no different than a quarterstaff.
you really should have read those pages...offically, your pretty much all wrong.
|
|
I haven't read all the pages in the middle, just the first page where there was a question of whether or not you can cast a spell while holding a bonded greatsword in one hand without making a check to do so. I'm not sure if this has already been said yet, but...
My ruling: yes, of course you can cast a spell without making a check. The rules: "If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell." (emphasis mine)
You only need the weapon "in hand." If you needed to "wield" your two-handed weapons with two hands even while casting, then you would not be able to cast spells without making a check while wielding a quarterstaff. It's a two-handed weapon too, you know. Does Gandalf really need to make those concentration checks? Really?
So go ahead and take your greatsword. It's no different than a quarterstaff.
Official ruling from James Jacobs is you must be wielding a bonded object held in hand (i.e. holding it in a usable manner) to avoid concentration checks to avoid losing your spell. Thus you cannot cast a spell with somatic components using a two handed weapon as a bonded item without making a concentration check as if you had lost your bonded item.
Again, people here are missing something.
Nobody doubts that a bard can make a good type of F/M.
But what we're saying, is that bard shouldn't be the only type of F/M
Granted, and I do agree. If you were to propose an alternate F/M, other than the bard, what would it look like?
Granted, and I do agree. If you were to propose an alternate F/M, other than the bard, what would it look like?Again, people here are missing something.
Nobody doubts that a bard can make a good type of F/M.
But what we're saying, is that bard shouldn't be the only type of F/M
I rather like the Duskblade as a 1-20 f/m class. Give it something nifty to choose between and a cap and they're set.
I rather like the Duskblade as a 1-20 f/m class. Give it something nifty to choose between and a cap and they're set.Granted, and I do agree. If you were to propose an alternate F/M, other than the bard, what would it look like?Again, people here are missing something.
Nobody doubts that a bard can make a good type of F/M.
But what we're saying, is that bard shouldn't be the only type of F/M
You mean like a choice between melee and ranged? Or more like offence and defense?
Problem is, the EK is NOT as good at being a primary caster as a primary caster, because he is several levels behind. He is going to be in melee more than any other arcane caster, so it IS going to have a bigger effect on him. Ergo, it is more of a problem for him than it is for a primary spellcaster..
But he doesn't HAVE to be. He still can fall back on what a primary arcane caster can do if he must. He is not going to have the problems in melee that a primary caster is because he is better equipped to handle melee situations. I just built a PC up to level 7 for fun (F1,W5,EK1). What I'm finding is that a PC going toward EK is better off finding out how to contribute in melee other than dominating with pure damage. He just can't compete in this particular area. But he can certainly hang out in melee with his fellow fighter.
I don't dispute that, but the spell selection he has is not optimal for this if he does not get the opportunity to buff up before getting stuck in, and spending several rounds buffing while everyone else fights doesn't win you friends.
Problem is, Pathfinder - rightly in my view - made casting in combat harder. This is good, but makes the role of the EK harder: he is better than any arcane caster in combat, but not good enough without his spells to back him up; he has great spells, but he can't cast them in combat. He's good if he can prepare, but catch him flat-footed and he is toast.
The best 'arcane warrior' I saw played was a fighter/sorcerer in 3.5. Using a host of low level spells from the Spell Compendium, he worked brilliantly, but he worked by using swift-action casting time spells a lot of the time, and this is what I think the arcane warrior style of character, be it a custom-class or a multi-class option, really could do with.
|
Developer
|
Official ruling from James Jacobs is you must be wielding a bonded object held in hand (i.e. holding it in a usable manner) to avoid concentration checks to avoid losing your spell. Thus you cannot cast a spell with somatic components using a two handed weapon as a bonded item without making a concentration check as if you had lost your bonded item.
Dang, really? So long, quarterstaff-wielding wizards! (Or rather, I guess you need to have something else be your bonded object if you want to wield a quarterstaff, or you're going to lose a bunch of spells.)
EDIT: I went back and read James Jacob's explanation of the difference he sees between a "magic staff" and a "quarterstaff" and I guess I can get behind that. I'm just a little bothered by the fact that a "magic staff" - until you actually are powerful enough to buy a real magic staff from the magic items chapter - is not an actual piece of equipment. Ah well, works for me.
I rather like the Duskblade as a 1-20 f/m class. Give it something nifty to choose between and a cap and they're set.Granted, and I do agree. If you were to propose an alternate F/M, other than the bard, what would it look like?Again, people here are missing something.
Nobody doubts that a bard can make a good type of F/M.
But what we're saying, is that bard shouldn't be the only type of F/M
You mean like a choice between melee and ranged? Or more like offence and defense?
|
|
You mean like a choice between melee and ranged? Or more like offence and defense?I rather like the Duskblade as a 1-20 f/m class. Give it something nifty to choose between and a cap and they're set.Granted, and I do agree. If you were to propose an alternate F/M, other than the bard, what would it look like?Again, people here are missing something.
Nobody doubts that a bard can make a good type of F/M.
But what we're saying, is that bard shouldn't be the only type of F/M
Heck, I could even see a choice between spontaneous and prepared casting. Do you want to go the dazzling display route? Spontaneous war captain! Do you want to go the combat expertise / combat maneuver route? Intelligent fighter with some well thought out tricks up his sleeve.
Few bards sing anymore; oratory and dancing are generally vastly preffered. So if you want to inspire via field commands, use oratory and saying you are issuing commands. Pathfinder bards do have most of what you're looking for; the EK as he stands does eventually, but doesn't really come into it until past where PFS and most campaigns end.
Dude - "oratory" is story telling, and "dancing" is FREAKIN' DANCING in the middle of combat.
No thank you! I'm not going to recite The Odyssey in the middle of combat, or start moving w/pirouette's and crap. It's silly.
Insisting otherwise ignores one KEY element of those abilities - they are directly tied to and keyed off of Performance skills! Again - No thank you!
Not a bard, NEVER a bard for this combo in *my* mind.
That said, the mechanic itself (minus skill-ties junk) is an interesting idea in itself. A 'bard' type of skeleton with a Marshall-like aura sort of thing could work out pretty well when mixing in the magic to boot.
[Side Note: Personally, for PF update and Marshall - I'd leave it alone (ie: no spells or anything) and just bump the BAB and HD up to Full and D10. Perfect (more or less) PF Marshall, IMO.]
I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some sort of magical "commander" crafted w/the Bard skeletal structure and tuning everything else about the class specifically towards that concept. But one more "a bard can do that just fine's" going to drive me nuts!
A bard WILL NOT do that fine - it needs some serious hammering and reshaping before it can do that.