What makes the EK so different from any of the other classes mentioned above, in terms of getting slain in one round of combat? Enough of the loaded situations and situational-dependent math. Ek is a class not too differnt from anything else. Everything is situationally both powerful and weak.When is the EK strong? What situations should the EK be strong in? I hear a lot of STFU, it's balanced, stop whining but no answers.
When the party is ambushed and no one has had a chance to buff - The EK has higher idle AC than most full casters, and more HP. But, this is entirely situational.
When engaged in melee and a larger threat looms on the other side of the battlefield; depending on spell selection, the EK could do anything from cast Scorching Rays, Fireballs, etc, then the next round re-engage their previous target in melee.
When in a party that has no other arcane caster, for use of looted scrolls, wands, or Identify castings when needed.
I could keep going, but again, we're talking situational examples. If you really can't think of any time a fighter who can dabble in magic, or wizard who can swing a sword is of any use, then go play something else. I've played it, never felt weak, and had a ton of fun at the same time. Several other players have all stepped in and said the same thing. If you really need validation, and every possible use spelled out for you, then I don't know what else to tell you.
You know when it's useful? When the player deems it to be.
I find the EK to be a very good class combo in certain groups. It's good in 3 player and 5 player group. In the 3 player group it allows you to have fighter and magic. In the 5 player group it adds combat and magic to strong group in a versatile manner. If you go to 6 or more players you are better off avoiding EK because as you can have say a Ranger, Fighter, Sorcerer, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue in 6 player game. But when you have a fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric and Rogue the EK adds nicely to this party.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Until his contingency goes off and dimension doors him to safety. Or until that blink spell makes him miss with his attack. Or until he gets black tentacles off etc.Because pure spellcasters? They don't get any of that stuff. EKs only!
Thus why this was an example of the EK beating a melee foe of equal/greater level, you know, my point that the EK will play to his foe's weakness, not his strength.
Any other quotes you'd like to take out of context Jared?
Again, you choose to hear, not to listen.
Gods I love this thread.
+1 for Freddy.
The right tool for the right job, that's the EK's motto.
I couldn't have said it better.
But you didn't answer the question: how many spells does he need to expend to survive melee combat?
You want an answer? As many as it takes.
Seriously, you're trying to get an approximate number out of a game that has an infinite number of possibilities, not to mention the largest midigating factor being the DM and the PLAYER themselves in said situations. A rough guess would be maybe 2 low level buffs, then keep something on hand for "just in case" if something gets dispelled. You keep asking for approximations without a fair baseline, that's just not possible. It's like asking exactly how many arrows an archer will need to fire in combat. We can guess and hypothesize, but approximations are tough. If you're still trying to argue against the existence of the EK, well, all I can say is it's an available class, and it's fun to play.
Jandrem wrote:
When the party is ambushed and no one has had a chance to buff - The EK has higher idle AC than most full casters, and more HP. But, this is entirely situational.
Which does him no good, because he dies in one round.
Quote:
When engaged in melee and a larger threat looms on the other side of the battlefield; depending on spell selection, the EK could do anything from cast Scorching Rays, Fireballs, etc, then the next round re-engage their previous target in melee.
No, he can't, because their "previous target" kills him in one round.
That's just asinine. You ask for an example and come back with "No, he cant cuz he dies". Are we role-playing the example out now? You DMing in the middle of a discussion?
Where is the bar for "quite capable in melee combat"? Because I'm hearing people set it at spending a lot of time buffing up first or not entering melee combat at all, and those are idiosyncratic definitions, to say the least.
Thats a really good question. One I asked you in one of the Fighter sucks threads and you refused to answer, when I proposed a tripping build that was 5 damage off per attack from a more optimal non-tripping build and you said he didn't stack up and sucked. The fact of the matter is, you set the bar so high or melee damage that it doesn't matter what I say. Any loss of damage for utility is wasted in your eyes, and any loss of spellcasting for something else is a greater waste. The fact of the matter is, the EK trades casting power for martial prowess at a rate similar to other classes. Many people enjoy the class and do not find its ballance off.
The class can meaningfully contribute to combat with melee attacks, as I have shown a character who can put out 30 damage/hit with a decent chance to hit and crit and gets to full attack. He can do this without magic items or buffs. He is doing 3 less damage compared to a fighter with each attack (arcane strike compensates for fighter training, but loses 3 from power attack), but sacrifices his ability to hit (-7, -4 from fighter training, -4 from wizard lvls, +1 from power attack). In exchange, he gets 16 caster levels. I don't think thats a bad trade.
Seriously, you're trying to get an approximate number out of a game that has an infinite number of possibilities, not to mention the largest midigating factor being the DM and the PLAYER themselves in said situations. A rough guess would be maybe 2 low level buffs, then keep something on hand for "just in case" if something gets dispelled. You keep asking for approximations without a fair baseline, that's just not possible. It's like asking exactly how many arrows an archer will need to fire in combat. We can guess and hypothesize, but approximations are tough. If you're still trying to argue against the existence of the EK, well, all I can say is it's an available class, and it's fun to play.Okay. If there's an infinite number of possibilities, then certainly you can name one single foe the EK is better off handling in melee combat than with spells from the longest distance possible. If it's as many spells as it takes, how many is that? How many should that be?
I answered that. You might've caught it if you read my statement. You didn't ask for an average of spells you are wanting specifics. I said maybe 2 lower level buffs(situational, as needed) and maybe something as a back up in case of being dispelled. There are tons of buff spells in the game, take what you see as most appropriate. If we are talking about an ECL 20 character, they probably have some means of accomplishing this quicker and more effectively, such as Quicken rods. Does that answer your question? Again?
I can tell you on average how many arrows an archer will need to fire in a fight against such-and-such foes or of such-and-such length. It's not hard to figure out. Is math that intimidating?
Nope, I can figure out averages just fine. That's why archers carry quivers of arrows til they run out, and get more. That's why EK's take what spells for the day they think they'll use, and the next day revise if necessary. I didn't ask about averages, and neither did you. You keep wanting specifics. Also, you're asking for specific enemies to fight being level appropriate? How about whatever the DM throws at you, unless for some reason you're in a game where you get to pick all your foes.
That's just asinine. You ask for an example and come back with "No, he cant cuz he dies". What are you even trying to accomplish at this point?Well, he does die. Seriously, everything with any melee combat ability beats the EK silly at any level. At level 20 stuff seriously does do 150 damage a turn easily to dorks with AC like the EK's. And this is not fighting the tarrasque or anything, just CR 16 stuff that you're supposed to be able to drop a dozen-a-day.
It'd be nice if you could have a class who could cast spells when that was necessary and fight in melee when that's necessary, but that's not the EK. The EK avoids melee like death, because it is death for him without a ton of time buffing up. He doesn't have the "melee" tool and that's very rarely the right tool for any situation anyway.
I'm just not seeing it. If built for melee, geared for melee the same as any other melee class, what does the EK dying in one round have to do with anything that ANY OTHER CLASS would die just the same? Why even continue bringing this up? And how are these situations all being played out without a single die being rolled, and not knowing anything baout the EK's gear setup, or how on earth it would be all that different than any otehr melee character of the same level.
How about HP gained per level of EK VS wizard, isn't that an advantage in melee combat?
maybe I do not understand melee combat. I could be wrong.
Yes. However, when enemies do 150 damage in one round, having 125 HP is little if any advantage over having 100. Plus, having a pad of HP isn't a tool on your toolbox, something you use to defeat enemies. There's no job solved by having 20 more HP. The EK does have fewer tools in his toolbox, however, because he's a lower-level spellcaster and that means fewer and weaker spells.
So...what new tool is he getting for his trouble? Where's the hex screw only the EK can turn, or that the EK can turn best?
Then what is that 16 HP the fighter has over the EK going to do for him?
Thats a really good question. One I asked you in one of the Fighter sucks threads and you refused to answer, when I proposed a tripping build that was 5 damage off per attack from a more optimal non-tripping build and you said he didn't stack up and sucked.What are you talking about? I'm not talking about low-level characters, or about fighters, or about any other class. Nor am I even talking about dealing damage. I asked you how many spells you think the EK should have to cast to survive two rounds, three rounds, etc. I await an answer. Whatever answer you give is the right one, since I'm asking your opinion.
The fact of the matter is, you set the bar so high or melee damage that it doesn't matter what I say. Any loss of damage for utility is wasted in your eyes, and any loss of spellcasting for something else is a greater waste. The fact of the matter is, the EK trades casting power for martial prowess at a rate similar to other classes. Many people enjoy the class and do not find its ballance off.Lemme show my math.
An ancient black dragon is a CR 16 foe. With a full attack, it does on average 182 damage to AC 25. Since Seltyiel is level 20 and a level-appropriate challenge is four ancient black dragons, he's not really able to enter melee with them at all unbuffed. Obviously, he's not going to enter melee with them unbuffed, since he has 174 HP. How many buffs should he need? How long should he last with those buffs? If ancient black dragons aren't a good foe, I'm game for alternatives he would enter melee with. If level 20 is a bad benchmark level, then, by all means, suggest another.
We have lots of people saying the EK is just fine in melee. Okay. Against what foes, under what circumstances, and with what results? Let's turn the airy assurances into practical examples.
Why is Seltyiel fighting an Ancient Black Dragon by him/herself? Wheres the rest of the party? What's the initiative order? What's the weather like? What kind of terrain is the fight taking place on? Why on earth is a ECL 20 EK toting around a 25 AC?
Does answering any of these somehow make an EK more or less fun to play?
Why is Seltyiel fighting an Ancient Black Dragon by him/herself? Wheres the rest of the party?Fighting the other three ancient black dragons. Is there another foe he's better off entering melee with?
Does answering any of these somehow make an EK more or less fun to play?It helps the OP die a lot less, for one.
The other three ancient dragons. I'm loving the way your examples keep changing. You want to know what's melee appropriate for an EK? How about whatever he decides to go melee with. Chances are he's got a few castings of True Strike up his sleeve, so that should cover attack bonuses. How about if the battle is taking place in a small 15' x 15' room, where you can't go running backwards and cast ranged spells. See? I can change the variables too.
Seriously, does the game ever become about role playing or is it all "optimize or die". I'm partial to role-playing whatever the mood feels like myself. When I play an EK, if I feel like going into melee, I know I got a better chance than a stand-alone wizard. If I feel like casting a spell, I got a better chance than the stand alone fighter. Trying to extract an exact science out of a class that dabbles in other fields is getting us nowhere. It's in the core rulebook, people are playing it, some of those people are actually having fun.
What makes the EK so different from any of the other classes mentioned above, in terms of getting slain in one round of combat? Enough of the loaded situations and situational-dependent math. Ek is a class not too differnt from anything else. Everything is situationally both powerful and weak.When is the EK strong? What situations should the EK be strong in? I hear a lot of STFU, it's balanced, stop whining but no answers. If you're so sure it's balanced, surely you can tell me what a reasonable expenditure of spells is, and how long a level 20 should be able to survive melee with a CR 16.
...or maybe the people claiming that it's fine have no relevant experience?
From my experience, (not with EK in particular, but with high level play in general), many "buff spells" have a duration of 1 min per level or more, which translated to: "I have multiple buffs already on for several encounters in a row and don't need to buff much during battle". So just eyeballing it, I'd say in a given fight, a single PC (not just an EK) would spend 1 or 2 rounds buffing with 1 round/level spells to be "ready to kill". Even a CR 16 monster might spend this amount of time in battle to buff up.
So in the EK's case, with access to spells like (just going to 4th level spells):
Protection from Evil-1 min/lvl
Enlarge Person-1 min/lvl
Expeditious Retreat-1 min/lvl
Resist Energy-10 min/lvl
See Invisibility-10 min/lvl
Blur-1 min/lvl
Mirror Image-1 min/lvl
False Life-1 hour/lvl
Bull's Str, Bear's End, Cat's Grace-1 min/lvl
Protection from Energy-10 min/lvl
Heroism-10 min/lvl
Fly-1 min/lvl
Keen Edge-10 min/lvl
Magic Weapon, Gtr-1 hour/lvl
Stoneskin-10 min/lvl
he can have a vast array and combination of buffs already up for a given fight, leaving spells like haste, blink, shield, and displacement (to name some of my players' favorites) to be cast during battle. Throw in the proliferation of scrolls, wands, potions, and even staffs and wondrous items, (and then the feat Extend Spell… to scribe an Extended Mirror Image for instance), the EK's resource management becomes a non-issue at the highest levels. Note that I focused on spells that aid in melee combat. I can see the EK doing just fine in melee, solo, against a CR appropriate monster and not dying without spending "8 rounds" to buff up in fight. In fact, the EK can reliably beat the monster in melee just as often as any other typical martial PC. The number of rounds it takes is irrelevant unless the fight goes over 14-18 rounds (depending on what class levels you take after level 16).
And as others have said, the EK can do things the Fighter just simply can't, and also do things the Wizard just simply can't. The only issue with the EK is how he performs at character levels 1-6 (where he basically is just a wizard) and at character levels 6-8 (where he tends to lag behind other classes).
Thats a really good question. One I asked you in one of the Fighter sucks threads and you refused to answer, when I proposed a tripping build that was 5 damage off per attack from a more optimal non-tripping build and you said he didn't stack up and sucked.What are you talking about? I'm not talking about low-level characters, or about fighters, or about any other class. Nor am I even talking about dealing damage. I asked you how many spells you think the EK should have to cast to survive two rounds, three rounds, etc. I await an answer. Whatever answer you give is the right one, since I'm asking your opinion.
You repeatedly have asked how can an eldrich knight be seen capable in combat. Therefore, I compared his damage output to a fighter, the class that is often considered the best in melee combat.
Where is the bar for "quite capable in melee combat"? Because I'm hearing people set it at spending a lot of time buffing up first or not entering melee combat at all, and those are idiosyncratic definitions, to say the least.
And as I said earlier, 1-2 spells for buff and 1-2 spells to use durring the combat. I answered your question like 5 posts ago. I also compared his combat capabilities without
The fact of the matter is, you set the bar so high or melee damage that it doesn't matter what I say. Any loss of damage for utility is wasted in your eyes, and any loss of spellcasting for something else is a greater waste. The fact of the matter is, the EK trades casting power for martial prowess at a rate similar to other classes. Many people enjoy the class and do not find its ballance off.Lemme show my math.
An ancient black dragon is a CR 16 foe. With a full attack, it does on average 182 damage to AC 25. Since Seltyiel is level 20 and a level-appropriate challenge is four ancient black dragons, he's not really able to enter melee with them at all unbuffed. Obviously, he's not going to enter melee with them unbuffed, since he has 174 HP. How many buffs should he need? How long should he last with those buffs? If ancient black dragons aren't a good foe, I'm game for alternatives he would enter melee with. If level 20 is a bad benchmark level, then, by all means, suggest another.
We have lots of people saying the EK is just fine in melee. Okay. Against what foes, under what circumstances, and with what results? Let's turn the airy assurances into practical examples.
Then what is that 16 HP the fighter has over the EK going to do for him?Not much. It's more the 10-ish AC that should make the difference. I would...
What kind of lvl 20 moron is only rocking a 25 AC? I have lvl 2 characters beating that.
Shield spell +4
+5 mithral breastplate +11
Dex +2
dex enhancement +2
Amulet Nat Armor + 5
Ring of Protection +5
AC = 39
Not as good as some other front line melee, but certainly not that pathetic 25.
Until his contingency goes off and dimension doors him to safety. Or until that blink spell makes him miss with his attack. Or until he gets black tentacles off etc.Because pure spellcasters? They don't get any of that stuff. EKs only!
Thus why this was an example of the EK beating a melee foe of equal/greater level, you know, my point that the EK will play to his foe's weakness, not his strength.
Any other quotes you'd like to take out of context Jared?
Again, you choose to hear, not to listen.
+1
Obviously :)
That's some really impressive nonsense, but again, against what foe and at what level is the EK best off entering melee combat? The 150 damage number was an abstraction, one somewhat near the level 20 numbers we were talking about.I guess then the question is about what kind of tool you want or want to be.
You have made some extrordinary enemies.
They do 150 damage in one round, sounds a little extreme is that 150 damage to every PC in the game at that moment regardless of location?Is that every round?
What level are these PCs?
150 seems like a wierd number for damage, what is the source, it is remarkably consistent?I guess then for your game the EK is out.
So what do you do the barbarian for the D12 and decreased vulnerability to the 150 points of damage?
That seems the best choice.
So the 150 was an abstraction, off the top of your head, and you're screaming bloody vengeance for approximate examples out of the rest of us. Awesome. My party fought a Tarrasque once, and it didn't do 150 damage to anybody in the party in a single round. So we are expected to jump through hoops and convince you with hard evidence, and you can pull numbers out of the air. Gotcha.
So...what can he do that a wizard can't? Before you say "enter melee" or some variation, enter melee with who, and why?
Can a straight wizard reliably enter melee with anything?
EDIT: CR appropriate of course. Oh yes it can… another wizard!
|
What kind of lvl 20 moron is only rocking a 25 AC? I have lvl 2 characters beating that.
So the 150 was an abstraction, off the top of your head, and you're screaming bloody vengeance for approximate examples out of the rest of us. Awesome. My party fought a Tarrasque once, and it didn't do 150 damage to anybody in the party in a single round. So we are expected to jump through hoops and convince you with hard evidence, and you can pull numbers out of the air. Gotcha.
Melee bite +32 (2d8+16 plus 4d6 acid), 2 claws +31 (2d6+11), 2 wings +29 (1d8+5), tail +29 (2d6+16)
So I get 64 out of just the bonus damage, so if we add the average damage of the dice...plus 53, is 117. Close enough for you?
You don't even disagree that that character is terrible, why are you calling me out and insulting me?
I said the character wasn't optimised for the kind of combat you wanted; that's not the same as being terrible.
I'm not trying to insult you, but I am calling you on a constant stream of straw man arguments. Lots of other posters have driven holes through your logic and propositions and your only response has been to either ignore them or suddenly move your goalposts.
I removed some offensive posts.
I'd also like to ask people to be civil. "Don't be a jerk" is the #1 messageboard rule.
So...what can he do that a wizard can't? Before you say "enter melee" or some variation, enter melee with who, and why?Can a straight wizard reliably enter melee with anything?
EDIT: CR appropriate of course. Oh yes it can… another wizard!
EDIT again: And as usual, you ignore most of any given poster's post.
What kind of lvl 20 moron is only rocking a 25 AC? I have lvl 2 characters beating that.** spoiler omitted **
So the 150 was an abstraction, off the top of your head, and you're screaming bloody vengeance for approximate examples out of the rest of us. Awesome. My party fought a Tarrasque once, and it didn't do 150 damage to anybody in the party in a single round. So we are expected to jump through hoops and convince you with hard evidence, and you can pull numbers out of the air. Gotcha.Melee bite +32 (2d8+16 plus 4d6 acid), 2 claws +31 (2d6+11), 2 wings +29 (1d8+5), tail +29 (2d6+16)So I get 64 out of just the bonus damage, so if we add the average damage of the dice...plus 53, is 117. Close enough for you?
In a game where you can live and die by a single point of damage, 117 is not close enough to 150. 37 points is still enough room to move around, and not die in the first round with.
What kind of lvl 20 moron is only rocking a 25 AC?BTW, how are you using a breastplate and counting Arcane Strike and also mentioning spell critical? What are you spending your swift action on?
Arcane strike while attacking, Arcane Armor training while casting. I never said use spell critical, that was annother poster. And if I need to use a quickened spell, I don't really mind 15% spell failure.
|
|
In a game where you can live and die by a single point of damage, 117 is not close enough to 150. 37 points is still enough room to move around, and not die in the first round with.
As long as no critical hits kick in.
With Power Attack, it's 16 extra damage on the bite and tail, 12 more on the claws, and 6 more on the wings.
Or that, since the dragon only misses on a one.