Arg... gish issues


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 801 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Okay so I´m making a PF core gish. I have no practiced spell caster, no somatic casting, no shielded caster, the arcane strike just bugs me compared to the old version...but I can take weapon specialization now...oh the wonders *rolls eye*. Arcane bonding a weapon makes the most thematic sense, but mechanically speaking doing so prevents shield use or two handed weapons unless you can make DC 20+spell level concentration checks in your sleep...and don´t mind drawing AoO to sheath your weapon when you cast spells...and then use a move to pull the sword out again next round. I mean honestly the EK class was bad enough, but the system seems to be REALLY against this archetype with what you have to do to be able to do what a druid can do with one feat. On top of that, the wild armor ability gets ported over for druids. Argg...so annoyed right now...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Just play a Duskblade :)


First off what level are you making it?

Super Genius Games

Or an Archon. :)

http://paizo.com/store/downloads/otherWorldCreations/pathfinderRPG/v5748btp y8bvi

Hyrum.


Guys he did say core.

Grand Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
First off what level are you making it?

Starting at 8, going to 15...maybe higher. It´s mostly a rant...and a realization that the gish in 3.5 wasn´t really playable till quite a bit of splat books were added to the core rules...kinda wished they carried a few of those into the PF core is all.

And I guess a bunch of people missed the CORE part...If I could use the 3.5 splats I would have much less an issue.

Dark Archive

So you're having...Gishues?

Grand Lodge

Todd Morgan wrote:
So you're having...Gishues?

Hahaha...yes, yes I am :) .

The Exchange

Yeah, the core rules crush Gish characters hardcore. In any of the games we play in my group we open up a lot of 3.5 material, with us getting together committee-style to modify things where needed.

Is the game with a relatively new group, or just a strict DM? I know that when I get new people into our group I like to keep it mostly to the basics, but after a few sessions I usually lighten up and unlock the floodgates.

Oh, and if you're using traits there is one trait that increases your caster level in one spell-casting class by 2, so long as it does not exceed your HD. Kind of a half Practiced Spellcaster.

Grand Lodge

Unless that trait is in the core book, no go. Strict DM.

The Exchange

Jeez, that's no fun. Does he at least have a good reason for sticking only to the core book?

I usually give in to a lot (but not all) of my player's wacky requests in the spirit of fun, so long as it doesn't break any of the rules. I mean seriously, have you looked at what's available feat and spell wise for casters in core? Effective, no doubt, but damned boring.


yeah i think pathfinder REALLY dropped the ball on fighter/spellcaster types. They could have at the LEAST made it to were you could burn all your feats to make it attainable. i think Pathfinder is way to biased on the bard being the role. so instead of just focusing on fighting and spellcasting you have to take bard and have a bunch of abilities you will never want to use and no damage spells. hopefully the APG gives a lot of bard options where you can make it less..well a bard lol.

why there so anti fighter-mage is beyond me. then you have the druid, decent BAB, 2 good saves, a powerful animal companion, wild shape, AND 9th level spells!? they have a lot of damage spells but a light/medium armored mage, fair BAB, and probably 7th level spells is to powerfull?!

if there not gona make a gish type class there needs to be some new feats in the APG to make it actually playable.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You can cast spells with a two-handed weapon in hand you know. Simply let go with one hand (free action), cast the spell (usually a standard action), then grab a hold again (free action). Simple.

The rules say you need to wield a two-handed weapon in both hands in order to attack, but you could carry it in one hand just fine.

I've never had the somatic issues that you describe.

Shadow Lodge

Cold Napalm wrote:
Unless that trait is in the core book, no go. Strict DM.

Don't think ANY traits are in the core book, are they?


Kthulhu wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Unless that trait is in the core book, no go. Strict DM.
Don't think ANY traits are in the core book, are they?

A Fighter-Mage/Eldritch Knight/Gish thread? Is it that time of the week again already?


RunebladeX wrote:

yeah i think pathfinder REALLY dropped the ball on fighter/spellcaster types. They could have at the LEAST made it to were you could burn all your feats to make it attainable. i think Pathfinder is way to biased on the bard being the role. so instead of just focusing on fighting and spellcasting you have to take bard and have a bunch of abilities you will never want to use and no damage spells. hopefully the APG gives a lot of bard options where you can make it less..well a bard lol.

why there so anti fighter-mage is beyond me. then you have the druid, decent BAB, 2 good saves, a powerful animal companion, wild shape, AND 9th level spells!? they have a lot of damage spells but a light/medium armored mage, fair BAB, and probably 7th level spells is to powerfull?!

if there not gona make a gish type class there needs to be some new feats in the APG to make it actually playable.

Personally, I don't really mind the current gish, and don't see why your saying he isn't playable. He is far more playable than the 3.5 core one. And the bard isn't the only gish they are going with, they added the alchemist and summoner, both of whom can do the job well.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:

You can cast spells with a two-handed weapon in hand you know. Simply let go with one hand (free action), cast the spell (usually a standard action), then grab a hold again (free action). Simple.

The rules say you need to wield a two-handed weapon in both hands in order to attack, but you could carry it in one hand just fine.

I've never had the somatic issues that you describe.

This. Also don't forget you can use a buckler or 1-handed shield, both of which allow fine hand movements required to cast spells.


Straight Bard. Don't fall into the fighter/wizard trap.

Bard will do almost anything you want it to with buffs, has combat potential, works well with Arcane Strike, and can UMD for wands to get the last "gish" effect. I recommend going for Magic Missiles, CL9, and/or Scorching Ray, CL11. Maybe Enervation, CL7, too.

Since you will have a lower BAB, get elemental-damage weapons to cover the difference. Consider TWF with whip and shortsword and improved disarm/trip.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Using the (two) Core Rule books to date, here are my suggestions.

1) Go for Tiefling or Aasimar. Since both are Outsiders (Native) you don't need that fighter level.

2) If step 1 works, then Sorcerer or Wizard don't really matter as much, since you don't need to lose the caster level as a fighter. Wizard 6 or Sorcerer 6 both have a BAB of +3, which is half that of a fighter, but 3/4th that of an average BAB class. Sure you can go Eldrich Knight as a Wiz 5, but why not grab the extra level?

3) as others have said, go Bard. Cast in light armor? Check. Cast at full caster level? Check. Use some martial weapons? Check. (all Martial if you go with one of the planetouched) If you get all martial weapons through the Aasimar bard trick, you could start at 8th level as a Bard 7, EK 1, giving you BAB +6 caster level 7 (with a high Cha) by 20th level you're a Bard 10/EK 10, with BAB of +17 6th level spells, and lots of chewy bard stuff.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

Using the (two) Core Rule books to date, here are my suggestions.

1) Go for Tiefling or Aasimar. Since both are Outsiders (Native) you don't need that fighter level.

2) If step 1 works...

Sadly, step 1 doesn't work. The game designers that be have ruled that aasimar and similar outsiders do NOT get outsider traits since they don't have racial hit dice. They only get what is outlined in their race entry.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Ravingdork wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

Using the (two) Core Rule books to date, here are my suggestions.

1) Go for Tiefling or Aasimar. Since both are Outsiders (Native) you don't need that fighter level.

2) If step 1 works...

Sadly, step 1 doesn't work. The game designers that be have ruled that aasimar and similar outsiders do NOT get outsider traits since they don't have racial hit dice. They only get what is outlined in their race entry.

Source please? I know it was confirmed in 3.x they did get the traits (thus the example of Elans specifically not getting Darkvision).


You may want to try sorceror into dragon disciple instead of wizard eldritch knight. Make str your primary score and go straight sorc into dd or take 1 level of paladin. The strength boost pretty much makes up for the lost bab and you can use buffs like haste and such to make up the difference.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

Using the (two) Core Rule books to date, here are my suggestions.

1) Go for Tiefling or Aasimar. Since both are Outsiders (Native) you don't need that fighter level.

2) If step 1 works...

Sadly, step 1 doesn't work. The game designers that be have ruled that aasimar and similar outsiders do NOT get outsider traits since they don't have racial hit dice. They only get what is outlined in their race entry.
Source please? I know it was confirmed in 3.x they did get the traits (thus the example of Elans specifically not getting Darkvision).
Ross Byers wrote:


Tieflings don't have racial hit dice, they advance by character class. So they don't actually get the outsider proficiencies.

Granted it's not a Jason rulling but the consensus is that Tieflings and Aasimars without racial hit dice only receive the benefits listed in their respective areas of the bestiary.

I think it's a logical ruling even though it hurts some of the CharOp builds.


Ghost Post, ninja'd by vuron

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Thanks Vuron,

I think I'm going to keep the racial proficiencies in the traits section in my worlds. Else we start to get weirdness on which traits they get and they don't. Same thing for the 3.x Elan. They're specifically called out as *not* getting the darkvision trait all aberrations get.

Also note that Humanoids are called out as: "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." [Emphasis mine] another point to the Outsider being proficient in Martial weapons. Any other exceptions to that rule (elves, dwarves, etc) are called out in the race description if it contradicts.

Grand Lodge

Point 1, I was talking about arcane bound items and two handed weapon. By the rules, you need to WIELD the weapon or face a DC20+spell level con check...not just have the item in hand. So the whole let go and cast doesn´t fly.

Point 2, a buckler lets you cast a spell, but now removes the AC if you do...there is noway to retain AC with a feat like with shield bashing. By the rules a small shield does NOT leave a hand free for casting...just to hold items. hence why somatic casting feat was made so late in 3.5. Also as you can´t wield weapons in that shielded hand, switching a bonded weapon to the shielded hand is a no go.

Point 3, I realize that the core 3.5 gish was worse and 3.0 even more so when you consider just core.,..that is part of my complaint here. Even in 3.x it required quite a lot of splat books to make the gish viable (and it was quite impossible in 3.0 actually).

Point 4, Bards are NOT a gish as they have elements of the skill monkey class more then a fighter so that makes him a better caster/skill monkey then a fighter mage.

Point 5, It´s less an issue of classes, but feats and mechanics of casting an arcane spell. On a side note, clerics and bards can´t use a shield and have a weapon drawn and cast a spell either as they have no hands free...same with the druid...except of course they can wild shape and have natural spell.

Point 6, when I say core, I mean just the first book...well I suppose anything in the beasty book too if there is anything useful for a player in there.


I worked on two gish ideas, if you want to look at them:

The Arcane Blade, and their spell-list. This class was designed as an arcane alternative to the psychic warrior.

The Stormchild, and their spell-list. This class was more a straight up energy-based in your face damage dealer without a great deal of subtlety.

Liberty's Edge

Okay, long post incoming. I do not know if many of the "pro-gish" camp will like it. Personally, I love the fighter-mage archetype, it's one of the three favorites, but guys, it needed to be nerfed, and nerfed hard.

Why the Gish Needed to be Nerfed

The 3.5 Gish was a power house. At 20th level, he could cast ninth level spells as a Wizard with a Caster Level of 20, had a BAB of at least 16, could cast in a mithril breastplate and shield without any risk of failure, cast in melee without any risk of provoking an AoO, and fire off a free quickened spell every time he made a full attack.

He held his own against the Cleric buffed with Divine Metamagic, against the sneak attacking Dire Bear casting as a full Druid, against the potent Wizard/Incantatrix, and against more obscure builds such as the Barbarian/Pschyic Warrior/Frenzied Berseker that regularly did 200+ damage per hit.

The 3.5 Gish was mighty, flexible, and potent. He was also insanely overpowered.

Look at the things he could match: Divine Metamagic? overpowered. Druid Wildshape? overpowered. the Druid-Friendly prestige classes in Complete Adventurer? overpowered. The Incantatrix? overpowered. Why should the Gish be considered any different?

Using just the pathfinder core, the default "optimized" Gish looks something like Fighter 2 / Wizard 8 / Eldrich Knight 10. At 20th level, that's a BAB of 16, allowing four attacks per round. He's also got 9th level spells. If traits are available, he's got a caster level of 19. The fundamentals of the Gish are still in place.

Despite this, however, there is still a great deal of... unhappiness with the gish as it stands. Here are the points as I see them, and my replies:

1) it doesn't fight as well as a Fighter. The 3.5 Gish did fight as well as a Fighter; in fact he was better at it.

a) Of course it doesn't fight as well as a Fighter, and of course the 3.5 version did. In pathfinder, nothing, not even barbarians and paladins, fight as well as a Fighter. In 3.5, pretty much any straight melee character was utter crap after 12th level; spellcasters could match their combat ability with a single spell, and stack on buffs to explode ahead. It's a pointless comparison.

b) What is interesting, however, is that with only a round or two of buffing, the pathfinder level 20 Gish fights at least as well as a 16th level Fighter, probably better. Not as many combat feats, sure, but its amazing what "Bestow Curse" can do to a character. I wonder how well a 20th level Barbarian or Paladin compares to Fighters from levels 16 to 20.

2) It doesn't cast as well as a Wizard. The 3.5 Gish did cast as well as a Wizard.

a) No it didn't. The caster levels were the same, but it didn't have nearly as many high level spells, plus no bonus feats, and most importantly no enhanced class abilities from another prestige class (like the incantatrix).

b) Again, it's interesting that the pathfinder level 20 Gish is equivalent at casting to a 17th level Wizard. The wizard has more feats focused on casting, but the Gish has two extra caster levels. Also, a sword - straight up wizards tend to not like swords.

3) It's a lot harder to cast in melee.

a) yep.

b) To elaborate: this is a design decision in pathfinder. It's a problem for Gish characters, for Melee Clerics, for Dire Bear Druids - basically anything that made itself really nasty in melee by using spells got hit with this nerfbat. It was done so the actual melee classes can compete more easily, and so that everyone has a reliable way to ruin a caster's day in a pinch. Casters were too strong across the board, and this is a big part of the fix for that problem. It's not a problem just for Gish characters, it's not a nerf for just Gish characters; it's an important fix for a systemic problem with half the classes in the game. Deal with it. You have strong melee ability for a reason, after all.

4) It can't wear armor without having some spell failure chance. It could in 3.5.

a) yes it can. Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery. You can use this and cast a spell. A Bard or Sorcerer can do this even while applying a metamagic feat and taking a 5-foot step.

5) It can't wear armor and cast a spell and attack all in the same round.

a) Right, because that would be overpowered. The Havoc Mage was an insane class - free quickened spell of any level any time you make a full round attack? That's broken.

6) It can't use the quickened spell feat.

a) ah. hmm. Alright, I'll give you that one.

b) Houserule: At level 1, Eldrich Knights gain the ability to apply both Arcane Strike and either Arcane Armor Training or Mastery, as well as use a quickened spell, all as a single swift action. Does that work?

In general, after the first couple levels compensate for the multiclassing penalty, the High Level Pathfinder Gish fights as well as a Fighter 3 levels below his current level and casts as well as a Wizard 3 levels below his current level. In a party with a single-classed Wizard and a single-classed Fighter, he's going to feel less than complete, much like a Bard would feel if a Rogue and a Sorcerer were also in his party. But in a party without one or both of those, the Gish will preform very well.

This holds true for any character that can fill more than one role in combat or out of combat. Either it is optimized for one and non-functional in all the others, or it is functional in multiple roles but not optimized for any of them. Seems balanced to me.

Is anything I've said incorrect?
Why do you feel that High-Level Gish in pathfinder are so weak?
Is the plural of Gish; Gishes, Gishs, or Gish? I think it's Gish.


Cold Napalm wrote:

Point 1, I was talking about arcane bound items and two handed weapon. By the rules, you need to WIELD the weapon or face a DC20+spell level con check...not just have the item in hand. So the whole let go and cast doesn´t fly.

Point 2, a buckler lets you cast a spell, but now removes the AC if you do...there is noway to retain AC with a feat like with shield bashing. By the rules a small shield does NOT leave a hand free for casting...just to hold items. hence why somatic casting feat was made so late in 3.5. Also as you can´t wield weapons in that shielded hand, switching a bonded weapon to the shielded hand is a no go.

Point 3, I realize that the core 3.5 gish was worse and 3.0 even more so when you consider just core.,..that is part of my complaint here. Even in 3.x it required quite a lot of splat books to make the gish viable (and it was quite impossible in 3.0 actually).

Point 4, Bards are NOT a gish as they have elements of the skill monkey class more then a fighter so that makes him a better caster/skill monkey then a fighter mage.

Point 5, It´s less an issue of classes, but feats and mechanics of casting an arcane spell. On a side note, clerics and bards can´t use a shield and have a weapon drawn and cast a spell either as they have no hands free...same with the druid...except of course they can wild shape and have natural spell.

Point 6, when I say core, I mean just the first book...well I suppose anything in the beasty book too if there is anything useful for a player in there.

If your greatsword is your arcane focus, wouldn't it follow that you could use it as the somatic component for your spellcasting? Somatic components aren't spelled out in each spell and seeing as its flavorable I think a reasonable DM would allow it.

Grand Lodge

Bob...the trouble with a lot of what your saying is it requires houserules...if it requires houserules to make it work...it´s broke.

Grand Lodge

nathan blackmer wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:

Point 1, I was talking about arcane bound items and two handed weapon. By the rules, you need to WIELD the weapon or face a DC20+spell level con check...not just have the item in hand. So the whole let go and cast doesn´t fly.

If your greatsword is your arcane focus, wouldn't it follow that you could use it as the somatic component for your spellcasting? Somatic components aren't spelled out in each spell and seeing as its flavorable I think a reasonable DM would allow it.

Reasonable DM...yes...by the rules...no. And the issue is I have a by the rules DM...and a fairly strict one at that.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Thanks Vuron,

I think I'm going to keep the racial proficiencies in the traits section in my worlds. Else we start to get weirdness on which traits they get and they don't. Same thing for the 3.x Elan. They're specifically called out as *not* getting the darkvision trait all aberrations get.

Also note that Humanoids are called out as: "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." [Emphasis mine] another point to the Outsider being proficient in Martial weapons. Any other exceptions to that rule (elves, dwarves, etc) are called out in the race description if it contradicts.

Well keep in mind many humanoids have base racial HD. Thus a regular ogre has simple weapon proficiency + phantom unlisted greatclub proficiency. But an ogre barbarian can ginsu with a Falchion as needed.

Getting back to the core question, I do think the EK gish does struggle some especially around middle levels. It's pretty much limited to one build strategy (wizard 5/fighter 1/EK x) but those middle levels really hurt because the EK can't melee very well (BAB and HP are low) and the loss of caster levels and higher level spells hurts. The additional flexibility gained at levels 17+ is nice but the EK's niche is pretty limited during large sections of the game.

EK is still good for small parties and can be useful as a fifth man but I can definitely understand why people get frustrated at the PrC. My personal preference would be to drop the multiclass PrCs and develop base classes that simulate their role. Bard already covers arcane rogue and inquisitor covers divine rogue. Paladin covers clerical fighter and ranger covers druidic fighter. It wouldn't be that hard to make an arcane fighter and possibly a arcane/cleric base class.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Cold Napalm wrote:
nathan blackmer wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:

Point 1, I was talking about arcane bound items and two handed weapon. By the rules, you need to WIELD the weapon or face a DC20+spell level con check...not just have the item in hand. So the whole let go and cast doesn´t fly.

If your greatsword is your arcane focus, wouldn't it follow that you could use it as the somatic component for your spellcasting? Somatic components aren't spelled out in each spell and seeing as its flavorable I think a reasonable DM would allow it.
Reasonable DM...yes...by the rules...no. And the issue is I have a by the rules DM...and a fairly strict one at that.

Aw, just go for the bastard sword. sure you lose 1.5 points of damage per hit, but she doesn't complain. ;-)


Cold Napalm wrote:

Point 4, Bards are NOT a gish as they have elements of the skill monkey class more then a fighter so that makes him a better caster/skill monkey then a fighter mage.

I thoroughly disagree, but if you really want fighter/wizard...

Half-orc Wizard Make you're arcane bond a ring or amulet or something not a weapon. Generalist wizard: throw your greataxe around with hand of the mage. You want 5 lvl's of wizard, 1 of fighter, then EK. Weapon focus touch and ray. You need stoneskin ASAP. Go with dex, not str. Damage will come from spells.

But really, this is a long, tiring uphill battle. EK is a terrible gish. It's much more a focus for wizards looking for something different. While not really "gish", AA is a much better class for doing a "warrior/mage" thing. And with that one, you CAN cast while holding the bow.

If you really want a sword&board, armor wearing spellcaster, it does not exist in core, save for the Paladin class.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

vuron wrote:
EK is still good for small parties and can be useful as a fifth man but I can definitely understand why people get frustrated at the PrC. My personal preference would be to drop the multiclass PrCs and develop base classes that simulate their role. Bard already covers arcane rogue and inquisitor covers divine rogue. Paladin covers clerical fighter and ranger covers druidic fighter. It wouldn't be that hard to make an arcane fighter and possibly a arcane/cleric base class.

(snipped other part)

The bard is a good place to start. Both my Arcane Legionary (found on the Pathfinder database, I can't access at work) and Adamant entertainment's Spellblade (in the Tome of Secrets) use bard progression.

I know this doesn't help you, OP, unless your DM is reading :-)


Cold Napalm wrote:
Okay so I´m making a PF core gish. I have no practiced spell caster, no somatic casting...

These types of issues are solved by a level of Eldritch Knight.

Cold Napalm wrote:
...no shielded caster...arcane bonding a weapon makes the most thematic sense, but mechanically speaking doing so prevents shield use or two handed weapons...

As Ravingdork pointed out above, nothing precludes somatic casting with a two-handed weapon. No sheathing required.

Also, a light shield enables you to use your hand for most non-attack actions (including drawing or holding material components). The equipment entry for the light shield is pretty specific on this issue. Again, no sheathing required.

Cold Napalm wrote:
the arcane strike just bugs me compared to the old version...

The amount of damage per day you can get out of Pathfinder's Arcane Strike is limitless, as compared to a limited amount that draws off of an already limited spells-per-day resource.

Cold Napalm wrote:
...on top of that, the wild armor ability gets ported over for druids...

A mithril shirt (and shield, if your build includes one) with the Arcane Armor Training feat resolves any and all spell failure chance issues you might have otherwise had to deal with.

Given that you can pretty easily (or in some cases effortlessly) do all of the things that you had issues with, I would say that the core system supports fighter/mage builds very well, especially considering that only one core player resource has been printed at this time.

Liberty's Edge

Cold Napalm wrote:
*a number of points relating to Gishes, two-handed weapons, shields, and spellcasting within the core rules*

Yes, all of those points are absolutely correct.

The 'arcane bond' issue is definitely problematic. I suggest a very minor house rule, also with a change in how you view the way a gish uses the weapon.

Having "the sword" be the arcane bond is mechanically problematic and doesn't make a whole lot of in-game sense, either - an arcane bond can be with a ring or amulet, that is used as an anchor or presented, similar to a holy symbol. Or, it can be with a wand or staff or athame (ritual-knife), that is used as an extension of the somatic gestures of spellcasting.

With a sword, I don't see the gish being required to weave the blade through the exact same gestures as he would with a wand or staff - I see him also being able to use it as an anchor or focus, the way a wizard would use a ring or amulet. He doesn't necessarily need it to complete his spells the way a wand would (though he can use it this way), but he always needs it to start them.

Personally, I would let the gish do either method. Treat the weapon as either an anchor or extension. That doesn't strike me as overpowered; I suppose it should be tacked onto "Eldrich Knight 1" for balance reasons. So he can use it as an extension of his spells and cast even if his other hand is holding a shield, but he can also cast without penalty by resting his hand on the hilt (but needs his other hand free to complete the gestures).

---

Regarding the shield problem, as you've pointed out yourself, it was only viable with shields thanks to a feat introduced late in the run of 3.5, but it did work with bucklers.

The problem here is, in 3.5, arcane spellcasters of all kinds could and did strap on mithril bucklers at 3rd level and reaped all the benefits. So did archers (which was the intended target), and so did folks with two-handed weapons. The buckler was too good.

Let gish with an arcane bond treat their weapon as either an anchor or extension, whichever is more convenient, and the shield problem goes away. It is a needed house rule ,but it's a small one.


BobChuck wrote:


Long Post....
Is anything I've said incorrect?
Why do you feel that High-Level Gish in pathfinder are so weak?
Is the plural of Gish; Gishes, Gishs, or Gish? I think it's Gish.

I do not think anything you have stated is specifically incorrect.

What i do think is that the multiclass wizard/fighter/eldrich knight NEVER filled the fighter mage role to satisfaction and the 'loss' of all the splat materical that existed in 3.5 (think duskblade) has made it signficantly more evident, after years of having the fightermage being solidly covered.

I will never think multiclassing will properly cover the fighter mage. It just doesnt work to me. Either he is a half spell caster and half a fighter that would be better off being one or the other, or he is too powerful at fighting or casting (because he should in a sense not be as good as straight characters). It is the ultimate multiclass dilemma. Which is why i think we are better served with a single class for this archtype.

The duskblade in 3.5 was close but too strong (in my opinion) either his casting needed to be dropped a little or his bab needed it. Either way it was a good shot because of one thing. It had class features that allowed him to combine combat and casting. That is what a fighter mage needs. Sure I dont hit as hard as the fighter, or cast as well as the wizard, i shouldnt. But when i cast a spell and wap you with my sword casting it, its awesome in it's own way. The class features allowed something totally new to be created (casting touch spells with an attack).

That is the problem with the pathfinder (core) fightermage. No single action you do will stack up to the rest of the party. Your combat alone is not as good as the party fighter. Your spells are lower levels and lower DCs then the party wizard. You are either a 5th party member or there to cover 2 roles in a 3 person party. Sure you have versitility, but each individual thing you do is lackluster. If you had a class that combined the weaker casting and weaker fighting into something new, like say the Super Genius Archon, then you have the makings of a fightermage that is fun to play.

The eldritch knight doesnt do this. You get a half arsed cap stone that doesnt work with either arcane armor training or arcane strike leaving it woefully lacking. Thats it, other then that you just progress in spell casting for most levels and BaB. With a few feats thrown in. There is no mixing the two.

The dragon disciple i think comes closer because it mixes the sorceror and a fighting class, but comes up short in terms of combining the two within single actions. In my home game we made the sorceror's claws unlimited uses per day, and it made the dragon sorc in to dd a pretty good fighter mage. Now my claws were always my method of attack, and that means I can use them to deliver my touch spells. I would cast and hold vampiric touch or some other touch spell and then deliver it on my next attack. It made for some really fun moments. Its not perfect but its a pretty good start.

The Summoner, and Inquisitor I think are also steps in the right direction. A summoner can actually be a very good combatant in their own right (even more so along side their badass eidolon), as can the inquisitor. I dont think those will help the OP because I dont think his dm would allow the APG when it comes out let alone the playtest material.

I still for my part recommend sorceror into dd, with possibly 2 levels of paladin if you want more fighter then mage.

Liberty's Edge

Cold Napalm wrote:
Bob...the trouble with a lot of what your saying is it requires houserules...if it requires houserules to make it work...it´s broke.

I mentioned ONE houserule in my entire post, and it addresses specifically the problem with Quickened Spellcasting.

I mention a second one, a very small and needed one, to deal with the shield problem.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
If you really want a sword&board, armor wearing spellcaster, it does not exist in core, save for the Paladin class.

Arcane Armor Training/Mastery, Mithril breastplate/chain shirt, light shield, one-handed martial weapon from race or fighter dips, apply favored class bonus to hit points.

OR

One level of bard, a light shield and any light armor you want, exotic weapon proficiency for a solid one-or-two-hander, apply favored class bonus to hit points.

OR

Fighter to wizard to Eldritch knight, ree exotic weapon proficiency of your choice from race.

OR

Play a bard or alchemist optimized for combat, or play a cleric, paladin, ranger, or inquisitor.

OR

Play a tengu, take your pick if exotic weapons, take straight wizard, sorcerer, or summoner with Arcane Armor Training/Mastery, apply favored class bonut to hit points and optimize AC.

OR

Play a draconic bloodline sorcerer and take dragon disciple, use a weapon if you really want to.


For what little it's worth, I'd love to see an arcane fighter built along the same lines as the inquisitor. Limited casting (6th level max) but spells at different levels giving them access to some higher level magics. Spell list focused on blasting and buffing, with some limited utility (mostly transportation magic).


I think the duskblade model of bard progression + full BAB is fine as long as it has a really limited number of spells in spell list. It's class abilities need to be limited in comparison to the paladin/ranger because it has better spell progression than either of the them but I don't think that bard progression + full BAB + small skills is a game breaking combo.

I would reflavor them some though by making charisma their governing stat for spellcasting (more battle sorceror in focus) which would hamper their skill points and I have some doubts about the quick spell ability.

Limit them to light/medium armor and no shield and shape the spell list so that they are limited to buffing/debuffing/some blast but virtually no summon or control spells and I think a duskblade like base class can fit into Pathfinder just fine.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Peter Stewart wrote:
For what little it's worth, I'd love to see an arcane fighter built along the same lines as the inquisitor. Limited casting (6th level max) but spells at different levels giving them access to some higher level magics. Spell list focused on blasting and buffing, with some limited utility (mostly transportation magic).

Peter, again I'll point you to the Pathfinder Database. Ha! Got a link. Try here.


As an indicator for 3.5 Tieflings, you also have the Tiefling Paragon class which (adding essentially a racial hit die) *did* grant the benefits of martial weapon proficiency.

Cold Napalm wrote:
nathan blackmer wrote:
If your greatsword is your arcane focus, wouldn't it follow that you could use it as the somatic component for your spellcasting? Somatic components aren't spelled out in each spell and seeing as its flavorable I think a reasonable DM would allow it.
Reasonable DM...yes...by the rules...no. And the issue is I have a by the rules DM...and a fairly strict one at that.

That's just a whole lot of silly. If your arcane bond was a wand, would that not be usable for somatics? How about if your arcane bond is a staff? That's two-handed also. You can also take a familiar instead you know :)

Hey Napalm - spell out your parameters, give us a bit more to work with. I've just finished playing, quite effectively, a pathfinder eldritch knight to 15th. Here's what I know:

Level: 8th
Books: Core rulebook only, and not using traits
Stats: ?
Personality/role: ? [looking for any specific casting focus, like enchanter or general-type, or just self-combat centric?]
Signature spell: ?

I think you'll be surprised how well the pieces come together :)

Side note on bards: Their BAB doesn't fall behind an Eldritch Knight's until 13th level.

The Exchange

I still strap on mithral bucklers with my Arcane casters. As long as I can cast with my other hand, my AC remains intact.


Just a quick add on, but I had a small change to the EK that I was gonna start a new thread for, but figured I'd just post it here.

Arcane Armor Grand Mastery: Add 5% to the amount of spell failure your Arcane Armor feats negate (15% for Arcane Armor Training, or 25% for Arcane Armor Mastery) and it no longer requires a swift action

I was going to add that to level 3 of EK. Is that way to overpowered? the way I see it, it then allows you to wear up to Mithral Full Plate without spell failure, which I think is pretty strong, and you no longer have to give up a swift action.

Please let me know what you guys think

Shadow Lodge

I've found that most people that complain about underpowered warrior-mages (I refuse to use the g-word), don't want a single warrior-mage class. They want a completely optimized gestalt fighter/wizard (or possibly fighter/sorcerer).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

DSRMT wrote:

Just a quick add on, but I had a small change to the EK that I was gonna start a new thread for, but figured I'd just post it here.

Arcane Armor Grand Mastery: Add 5% to the amount of spell failure your Arcane Armor feats negate (15% for Arcane Armor Training, or 25% for Arcane Armor Mastery) and it no longer requires a swift action

I was going to add that to level 3 of EK. Is that way to overpowered? the way I see it, it then allows you to wear up to Mithral Full Plate without spell failure, which I think is pretty strong, and you no longer have to give up a swift action.

Please let me know what you guys think

Personally? Yes.

I'm a big 'economy of actions' guy. One thing that makes familiars useful in Pathfinder is they can, for a few skill points more, give the wizard a 'free' action with UMD (Yes, they can make their bonded item intelligent, and give it abilities it can use, but that takes resources as well).

For the EK, having to juggle the Arcane Strike/ASF/Spell Critical is a resource management issue. Does it make the capstone useless? I don't think so. With Bracers, shield, blur, displacement greater invisibility stoneskin, etc. an EK can actually still be pretty hard to hit/damage in combat.

It's like the summoners dilemna. Burn a round having no immediate effect on the battle to next round summon allies to increase your actions available. It's all about managing actions.

Increasing the ASF% you can ignore is ok, making it a free action makes it a little too good IMNSHO.


Kthulhu wrote:
I've found that most people that complain about underpowered warrior-mages (I refuse to use the g-word), don't want a single warrior-mage class. They want a completely optimized gestalt fighter/wizard (or possibly fighter/sorcerer).

Not me, I'd like something along the Ranger/Paladin template. Basically a warrior with full BAB, 1D10 HD, 2 good saves, a few class features and arcane spell starting at 4th level same progression are Ranger and Paladin divine spells. That would be good enough for me and it would round things out nicely.

Now I like the idea of full caster full fighter but that I can use Gesalt to do.

1 to 50 of 801 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Arg... gish issues All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.