RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Not exactly what I was after. Too plain and lacking synergy. That is in every way worse than the EK.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.
Really? Hmm let me look.
6th level casting, check.
spells at different levels, check
able to learn a limited number of additional wizard/arcane spells, check.
Bonus feats, check.
Casts spells and fights at all levels, check.
Just curious how it -doesn't- fit your needs? Not to mention, a Arcane Legionary 7 can then multiclass into EK if you want to give up bonus feats/extra spells.
AL10/EK10 = +17 BAB, spells up to 6th level, CL 19 save +12/+6/+10 Swift action isn't needed for Arcane Armor Mastery.
Ftr1/Wiz9/EK10 = +15 BAB, spells up to 9th level, CL 18 save +10/+6/+9
In every way? No.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.g@% d&@n it...I missed the entire last line on that page...hey so the staff is once again viable...that still doesn´t help the great sword tho. I actually quite like this rules change in PF. Thanks for bonking this one over my head.
I still say just go bastard sword. *shrug*
I'm just wondering. The wielding part, is that a part of the spell casting? If so I still don't see the problem, it is possible to wield a great sword in one hand you just get a -4 penalty to do so (if my memory serves me right). So as long as you are not attacking and casting a spell at the exact same time (which is basically impossible) there is no problem. Letting your hand go wielding the great sword in a threatening manner while casting the swift action or standard action spell, free action grip it again and hack your enemies to pieces.
So the majority of the suggestions posted here aren't good enough and the Eldrich Knight isn't good enough and you want people to come up with an optimization guide that takes advantage of holes in the rules which pretty much don't exist so you can make a character combo that's better than Eldrich Knight?
|
I actually agree with him on this point actually...that wielded is NOT the same as in hand. You can keep a longsword in hand with a small shield...but you can not wield a longsword in the hand with a small shield for example. Of course this does make bonding two handed weapons or staffs utterly STUPID...but that is an issue that paizo should fix via errata to either change wielded to in hand or the better option of say weapons, staffs and wands bounded can act as somatic components.
Now you're just talking crazy.
You're claiming that RAW will not allow a caster to hold the most iconic caster bonded item and still cast spells? The rules specifically include the staff as an allowed bonded item mentioning them on multiple occasions, and yet and you and your GM are arguing that you can't use it as a bonded item because it has to be wielded and you wouldn't have a hand free to cast? Think about this for a second, and read the section again.
You've shot down every reasonable example provided as being "outside the RAW". There's a point where one has to read rules and understand the intent, and realize the word "wielded" (which is never defined in Paizo parlance) means "held" in this context. If somewhere in the Paizo glossary there were an entry for "wielded" that defined the term to mean that two-handed items must be held in two-hands, I'd see your argument, but at this point you're picking on semantics. Step back and look at the bigger picture; under your interpretation of the rules, an Arcane Archer can never use a bow and a wizard can never carry a staff. Now tell me that this still makes sense.
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.g!~ d!!n it...I missed the entire last line on that page...hey so the staff is once again viable...that still doesn´t help the great sword tho. I actually quite like this rules change in PF. Thanks for bonking this one over my head.
My understanding of this rule was that it is for large creatures using a normal sized double weapon in one hand. They are still two handed for regular people.
That's just my reading, YMMV, check with your DM, etc...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Now you're just talking crazy.You're claiming that RAW will not allow a caster to hold the most iconic caster bonded item and still cast spells? The rules specifically include the staff as an allowed bonded item mentioning them on multiple occasions, and yet and you and your GM are arguing that you can't use it as a bonded item because it has to be wielded and you wouldn't have a hand free to cast? Think about this for a second, and read the section again.
In his defense, it's his DM who's being a stick in the mud.
The locked gauntlets help against disarming...rings and amulets prevent it entirely. Having only 1 ring or no amulets til level 7 is no big deal since your money generally can be spent elsewhere pretty easily at those levels. Sundering offensive tools in hand happens pretty often...sundering a ring or amulets that may or may not be an arcane bound item...yeah, unless the DM is being a jerk is less likely. Here´s the thing, with RAW, you would be insane to pick bonded item over a familiar from a purely mechanical stand point...and then option of items is rings and amulets, then weapons, then staffs, then wand. You´d have to be a fairly hardcore harry potter fan to choose wand...come to think of it the wand choice could use a bit of a boost.... Basically I want optimizer guide writers to go humm...when they write their guides...not go pick this because it is infinitely superior...which the familiar option is currently...and the ring and amulet choices for items.
You are the first person I have seen actually say a familiar is better than a bonded item in any context. The bonded item has been taken for every wizard I have seen, and none want a familiar compared to it. The extra free spell is amasing.
Now, you have been given multiple options for going gish. You could take 1 of many bonded items and use a buckler, then not use your shield or weapon on turns you cast. You could use a 2 handed weapon and suffer no penalties, since you can re-arm your weapon as a free action and hold it in 1 hand while casting. Or you could use a familiar, and not have to worry about it. Your swift actions will be taken up either countering arcane spell failure or adding extra damage, and if you want to quicken spells you have to deal with it. Thats what is currently in core, and its pretty ballanced. The fact that an overpowered character concept got a nerf doesn't really bother me.
|
|
You are the first person I have seen actually say a familiar is better than a bonded item in any context. The bonded item has been taken for every wizard I have seen, and none want a familiar compared to it. The extra free spell is amasing.
In fairness, I've heard complaints about Bonded Items a lot. It entirely depends on the DM. Cruel and unusual DMs that love sundering/stealing items have a field day with bonded items. Since there is a significant penalty associated with spellcasting when you don't have your bonded item (spell failure checks on all castings), in campaigns where you're constantly worried about the safety of the bonded item, the fact that there is no penalty associated with a dead familiar is huge.
More than anything it has to do with the campaign.
|
I actually agree with him on this point actually...that wielded is NOT the same as in hand. You can keep a longsword in hand with a small shield...but you can not wield a longsword in the hand with a small shield for example. Of course this does make bonding two handed weapons or staffs utterly STUPID...but that is an issue that paizo should fix via errata to either change wielded to in hand or the better option of say weapons, staffs and wands bounded can act as somatic components.Now you're just talking crazy.
You're claiming that RAW will not allow a caster to hold the most iconic caster bonded item and still cast spells? The rules specifically include the staff as an allowed bonded item mentioning them on multiple occasions, and yet and you and your GM are arguing that you can't use it as a bonded item because it has to be wielded and you wouldn't have a hand free to cast? Think about this for a second, and read the section again.
You've shot down every reasonable example provided as being "outside the RAW". There's a point where one has to read rules and understand the intent, and realize the word "wielded" (which is never defined in Paizo parlance) means "held" in this context. If somewhere in the Paizo glossary there were an entry for "wielded" that defined the term to mean that two-handed items must be held in two-hands, I'd see your argument, but at this point you're picking on semantics. Step back and look at the bigger picture; under your interpretation of the rules, an Arcane Archer can never use a bow and a wizard can never carry a staff. Now tell me that this still makes sense.
Actually I guess you missed the whole discussion about wielding double weapons in one hand...so by RAW, you actually can wield a staff in one hand...yeah it was news to me too. The arcane archer is a thought though...humm that might be an angle to get the rules changed. But then again you don´t exactly have to bind an weapon...it´s just that it´s so much more fitting thematically. Just kinda wished they didn´t punish you for it.
|
|
The locked gauntlets help against disarming...rings and amulets prevent it entirely. Having only 1 ring or no amulets til level 7 is no big deal since your money generally can be spent elsewhere pretty easily at those levels. Sundering offensive tools in hand happens pretty often...sundering a ring or amulets that may or may not be an arcane bound item...yeah, unless the DM is being a jerk is less likely. Here´s the thing, with RAW, you would be insane to pick bonded item over a familiar from a purely mechanical stand point...and then option of items is rings and amulets, then weapons, then staffs, then wand. You´d have to be a fairly hardcore harry potter fan to choose wand...come to think of it the wand choice could use a bit of a boost.... Basically I want optimizer guide writers to go humm...when they write their guides...not go pick this because it is infinitely superior...which the familiar option is currently...and the ring and amulet choices for items.You are the first person I have seen actually say a familiar is better than a bonded item in any context. The bonded item has been taken for every wizard I have seen, and none want a familiar compared to it. The extra free spell is amasing.
Now, you have been given multiple options for going gish. You could take 1 of many bonded items and use a buckler, then not use your shield or weapon on turns you cast. You could use a 2 handed weapon and suffer no penalties, since you can re-arm your weapon as a free action and hold it in 1 hand while casting. Or you could use a familiar, and not have to worry about it. Your swift actions will be taken up either countering arcane spell failure or adding extra damage, and if you want to quicken spells you have to deal with it. Thats what is currently in core, and its pretty ballanced. The fact that an overpowered character concept got a nerf doesn't really bother me.
I am not the first to say the familiars are better then bonded items...in fact every single optimizer players in the various groups I play with thinks so. The disadvantage is just too big until fairly high levels. If forced to choose an item, they would pick the ring or amulet...hands down.
And if you haven´t been paying attention, two handed weapons are a no go. The list of feats that I miss doesn´t negate the use of the swift for reducing arcane failure...and redoing the arcane strike as I mentioned should cost a swift still so I fail to see how that changes anything. All somatic casting lets you do is cast a spell with both your hands tied up with something...this is actually a must have feat for a cleric as well as a gish that wants to use a shield. It´s kinda like natural spell for druids...to say you shouldn´t have this feat is to say the druids shouldn´t have natural spell...which maybe right...but in any case I fail to see where anything I mentioned even remotely lets me do what you mentioned using a core PH gish.
And yes I can just pick a familiar...the whole point was that wasn´t a good option thematically. But mechanically, that is probably what I will do in this game. I wasn´t really asking for suggstion, I was ranting about some feats I felt was missing/mis-done and the wording on bonded items.
|
Well I actually opt for familiars when I play wizards. I like having a little critter that can do a little scouting and spying, give me a boost to my own perception checks and another boost to something else. The Viper is an especially good spy because of it's +4 racial bonus of perception. Cats are good in an urban environment because nobody bats an eye at them, and rats are good in dungeons because it can (after level 7) ask the other rats in there if there are any real big monsters or such. Hell, because it uses your skill ranks you can even have it go off when you enter a town and have it Gather Info from the local wildlife. I think it also says a lot about a character's personality that they chose to have a friend rather than a magic item.
And when I do choose a bonded item, I usually pick a bonded wand for when I want to play a non-item creation wizard (which is rarely). I like having a wand as an offensive battery, but I don't always like spending the feat on it. A CL 5,7,9 wand of Magic Missle can be absurdly helpful, and not really that expensive. I don't think I would take a Staff as my bonded item, unless we started the campaign at level 10+. I'd pick a Battle Axe for an EK character because it's coooooooler than a longsword.
EDIT: I just lol'd at the idea of my rat familiar using intimidate on the local dungeon rats...
So you get to be even worse at spellcasting if you actually use the ability you traded two caster levels for. But the EK is fine, guys! Seriously!
Ah, correct me if I'm wrong(hopefully I am), but it looks like you want something with:
d12 Hit DiceFull BaB
Good saves across the board
Full Spellcasting as a Wizard/Sorcerer
Imagine that, not having to give something up for a warrior-mage concept. I mean, come on, anything less than the above list is just useless! [/sarcasm]
Actually both 5 and 6 are wrong. You can cast and fight at the same time and use the quickened spell feat. You simply have to be willing to risk arcane spell failure to do so or make heavy use of still spell... a logically balanced set of choices.So you get to be even worse at spellcasting if you actually use the ability you traded two caster levels for. But the EK is fine, guys! Seriously!
See I actually wouldn't have an issue with being worse at spellcasting using those Feats after having traded the two caster levels, if the EK was something of a Martial character who can cast a few spells. Unfortunately the entire premise of the EK is already decidedly tilted towards being far more of a caster-who-can-wield-martial weapons, and becasue of the way that balance is tilted towards being a caster, the above options are not just inefficient, but suicidal in a lot of cases.
Ah, correct me if I'm wrongYou're wrong. Stop being purposefully obtuse.
A bit snippy about sarcasm I see. Guess it can't be helped.
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.My understanding of this rule was that it is for large creatures using a normal sized double weapon in one hand. They are still two handed for regular people.
That's just my reading, YMMV, check with your DM, etc...
This is entirely correct - double weapons (at least 95%+ of them) must be wielded in two hands, just as any two-handed weapon must be. That is to say, unless you are larger size, making it a one-handed weapon for you. And should you wield that now one-handed weapon, in one hand, you cannot use it as a double weapon.
In other words, no casting Enlarge Person at first level and making four attacks with two medium sized two-bladed swords, one in each hand.
I love sarcasm. It lets me be mean without having to actually be clever.
No worries about that happening.
A bit snippy about sarcasm I see. Guess it can't be helped.I love sarcasm. It lets me be mean without having to actually be clever.
However, there's a very strong and entirely earnest local belief, one which is at least partially James Jacobs's fault, that anyone who wants a character who casts arcane spells, swings a sword, and doesn't suck is a powergaming munchkin who wants to overshadow both the fighter and the wizard, and that this is justification for the EK being a mediocre spellcaster and a terrible melee combatant.
Except for the fact that its not. Its a class that can currently hold its own in both melee and spellcasting. It lags a bit at mid lvls, like most prestige classes that mix casting do, but overall is a solid choice.
A bit snippy about sarcasm I see. Guess it can't be helped.I love sarcasm. It lets me be mean without having to actually be clever.
However, there's a very strong and entirely earnest local belief, one which is at least partially James Jacobs's fault, that anyone who wants a character who casts arcane spells, swings a sword, and doesn't suck is a powergaming munchkin who wants to overshadow both the fighter and the wizard, and that this is justification for the EK being a mediocre spellcaster and a terrible melee combatant. The results of this belief are evenly split between "The EK is fine, srsly, anyone who wants more just wants to be overpowered" and "Ha ha, that's what you get for making an EK!"
Indeed no matter how many times it is couter pointed by the people who ACTUALLY think the EK is underpowered and fails to fulfill it's role, the belief seems to keep popping up. It is possible to think something that currently exists doesnt work well/right without wanting it to be codzilla. I swear its possible.
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*.
Some suggestions.... (they may have been mentioned but this thread is a little chaotic so I apologize if I missed it)
If going the EK route and want heavier armor, take a sorcerer with Arcane Bloodline. The Metamagic Arcana ability can be used to apply Still Spell to the spell you cast with the EK's capstone ability, giving the EK a lot more flexibility. An EK with a weapon that does good crits is a pretty strong EK.
Another option is to play a Bard with a lot of combat feats and buff spells. Remember Bards have d8 hit dice now and, built well, can actually become decent melee combatants, as well as provide tons of other party support. While definitely not a tanker, you can be a nice finesse fighter with spells this way and never have to multiclass unless you want to.
Except for the fact that its not. Its a class that can currently hold its own in both melee and spellcasting. It lags a bit at mid lvls, like most prestige classes that mix casting do, but overall is a solid choice.A bit snippy about sarcasm I see. Guess it can't be helped.I love sarcasm. It lets me be mean without having to actually be clever.
However, there's a very strong and entirely earnest local belief, one which is at least partially James Jacobs's fault, that anyone who wants a character who casts arcane spells, swings a sword, and doesn't suck is a powergaming munchkin who wants to overshadow both the fighter and the wizard, and that this is justification for the EK being a mediocre spellcaster and a terrible melee combatant.
How exactly does it hold its own? It doesnt offer anything to make up for the loss. Every single action you do will be less effective then a single classed character with no features or abilities to compensate.
How exactly does it hold its own? It doesnt offer anything to make up for the loss. Every single action you do will be less effective then a single classed character with no features or abilities to compensate.Except for the fact that its not. Its a class that can currently hold its own in both melee and spellcasting. It lags a bit at mid lvls, like most prestige classes that mix casting do, but overall is a solid choice.A bit snippy about sarcasm I see. Guess it can't be helped.I love sarcasm. It lets me be mean without having to actually be clever.
However, there's a very strong and entirely earnest local belief, one which is at least partially James Jacobs's fault, that anyone who wants a character who casts arcane spells, swings a sword, and doesn't suck is a powergaming munchkin who wants to overshadow both the fighter and the wizard, and that this is justification for the EK being a mediocre spellcaster and a terrible melee combatant.
It loses both combat prowess and a few caster levels and gains a ballance between the 2. It makes up for the losses by being more versatile. Its the same trade off the Bard makes.
edit: arguably, the bard gives up more, having poorer spell casting and lower BAB. Bard does make up for it a little with skill points though.
Except for the fact that its not. Its a class that can currently hold its own in both melee and spellcasting. It lags a bit at mid lvls, like most prestige classes that mix casting do, but overall is a solid choice.A bit snippy about sarcasm I see. Guess it can't be helped.I love sarcasm. It lets me be mean without having to actually be clever.
However, there's a very strong and entirely earnest local belief, one which is at least partially James Jacobs's fault, that anyone who wants a character who casts arcane spells, swings a sword, and doesn't suck is a powergaming munchkin who wants to overshadow both the fighter and the wizard, and that this is justification for the EK being a mediocre spellcaster and a terrible melee combatant.
Except that those aren't facts at all.
How exactly does it hold its own? It doesnt offer anything to make up for the loss. Every single action you do will be less effective then a single classed character with no features or abilities to compensate.Except for the fact that its not. Its a class that can currently hold its own in both melee and spellcasting. It lags a bit at mid lvls, like most prestige classes that mix casting do, but overall is a solid choice.A bit snippy about sarcasm I see. Guess it can't be helped.I love sarcasm. It lets me be mean without having to actually be clever.
However, there's a very strong and entirely earnest local belief, one which is at least partially James Jacobs's fault, that anyone who wants a character who casts arcane spells, swings a sword, and doesn't suck is a powergaming munchkin who wants to overshadow both the fighter and the wizard, and that this is justification for the EK being a mediocre spellcaster and a terrible melee combatant.
It loses both combat prowess and a few caster levels and gains a ballance between the 2. It makes up for the losses by being more versatile. Its the same trade off the Bard makes.
edit: arguably, the bard gives up more, having poorer spell casting and lower BAB. Bard does make up for it a little with skill points though.
But the bard has things those other classes dont. It has skills it has bardic songs. IE Bards ability to fight is less then a fighter, its casting is less then a wizard or sorc, but it still has its thing. Add that up and you have a real character. Not my personal favorite but its at least fun to play.
What does an EK have that is worth a damn? It can only do things both the fighter and wizard can do, only worse. And the whole 'versatility' thing is a smokescreen. You are only versatile if you can actually do multiple things. If you dont do well in combat (lower ac, lower hp, lower to hit, and lower damage) and your casting is poor (lower spell levels, lower DC's, lower caster level/casting stat), and thats all you do, there is no reason to be that character.
A fighter mage should have a way to combine the two into something different from exactly what fighters and mages do but equivalent.
Then go ahead. Build an EK who is better off entering melee than simply casting spells. I find the deadly combination of being a total wimp and having nothing to do in melee put a kink in that plan.
I have. Your failure to do so means precisely nothing.
Unfortunately, I think the OP is screwed here; I haven't seen the PF eldritch knight in action, but I remember the pain of playing a 3.5 one and my sympathies are entirely with him. A "core rules only" GM = no gish for joo.
In a more reasonable game, assuming you don't go with a 3rd-party warrior-mage base class, you might consider talking to the GM about reskinning the paladin to an arcane caster. Turn "smite evil" into "arcane channeling" and trade some of the "holy aura" stuff for sorcerer bloodline abilities, that kind of thing.
Doesn't help with the question at hand, I know ... but as I say, I think you're in a no-win situation there.
-The Gneech
Unfortunately, I think the OP is screwed here; I haven't seen the PF eldritch knight in action, but I remember the pain of playing a 3.5 one and my sympathies are entirely with him. A "core rules only" GM = no gish for joo.
I am running a Pathfinder campaign with a Fighter 1/Sorcerer (Arcane Bloodline) 6/EK 10 in the party.
Let's see, for a simple example (certainly not the only things he's ever done), last game he disintegrated a CR 15 Earth Elemental-type creature and went slicey-dicey on a pack of Advanced Devourers with his bonded falchion.
He beat something like 4 out of 5 caster level checks to beat SR. (And our full caster doesn't always beat every single SR check.)
There are some notable differences between the 3.5 EK and the Pathfinder one. For example, EK levels count as fighter levels for qualifying for Fighter feats. All EK levels count as caster levels. These are "little things that mean a lot" if you're building carefully. A crit build is astounding with the EK's capstone. As I'd mentioned above, the Arcane Sorcerer uses Metamagic Adept to put Still Spell onto the spell he casts using his Capstone ability so no worries about spell failure due to armor.
It's of course circumstantial--someone may well have seen a Pathfinder EK who was doing poorly. But you said you hadn't seen the EK in action, and I have, plenty, and the EK seems to be doing just fine.
*edited for clarity
But the bard has things those other classes dont. It has skills it has bardic songs. IE Bards ability to fight is less then a fighter, its casting is less then a wizard or sorc, but it still has its thing. Add that up and you have a real character. Not my personal favorite but its at least fun to play.
What does an EK have that is worth a damn? It can only do things both the fighter and wizard can do, only worse. And the whole 'versatility' thing is a smokescreen. You are only versatile if you can actually do multiple things. If you dont do well in combat (lower ac, lower hp, lower to hit, and lower damage) and your casting is poor (lower spell levels, lower DC's, lower caster level/casting stat), and thats all you do, there is no reason to be that character.
A fighter mage should have a way to combine the two into something different from exactly what fighters and mages do but equivalent.
I would love to see an ability that lets the fighter-mage do something unique, like delivering spells with melee attacks. Its a different thing to request cool abilities that a build can pick up than asking for increased power of the class or build. Currently, the EK's power is in line with full class characters.
The Fighter-Mage as it stands now is a fully capable character. No, its not as good as the fighter at his specialty or the mage at his. It shouldn't be. It has a unique role, being in the front line casting spells and fighting as the situation asks. Is it the optimal build? Probably not. That does not mean it is not a valid one. The game is not designed to be taking all optimal characters arround. If you do, you will find yourself horribly overpowered.
The current EK is capable of getting good spells, enough HP to be on the front line, and a decent AC. He has enough combat prowess that he doesn't need to cast spells in combat like a full mage, so he can spend a greater percentage of his resources on non-combat. This makes up for the fact that he gets slightly fewer resources than a full class caster.
I am running a Pathfinder campaign with a Fighter 1/Sorcerer (Arcane Bloodline) 6/EK 10 in the party.
Let's see, last game he disintegrated a CR 15 Earth Elemental-type creature and went slicey-dicey on some undead with his bonded falchion.
Yeah, but keep in mind you're talking about a 17th level character! Remember all WotC's famous market data that talks about how most games don't go past 9th-12th level? It's still true. How about, say, 7th level? How did the EK perform then? I can't speak for the OP, but my own experience suggests that if I was starting a game I'd want to play a viable warrior-mage *now*, as opposed to in a hypothetical 14+ levels that might not (probably won't?) come.
There are some notable differences between the 3.5 EK and the Pathfinder one. For example, EK levels count as fighter levels for qualifying for Fighter feats. All EK levels count as caster levels. These are "little things that mean a lot" if you're building carefully. A crit build is astounding with the EK's capstone. As I'd mentioned above, the Arcane Sorcerer uses Metamagic Adept to put Still Spell onto the spell he casts using his Capstone ability so no worries about spell failure due to armor.
For my 3.5 guy, spell failure was almost never a problem ... his problem was a big ol' glass jaw (making melee a pointless endeavor) and that spellcaster levels were hosed (nothing tickles a 9 hit die monster like a 1d4+1 magic missile). Looking at the PfRPG one, I see that his hit die and caster levels get a significant bump, which is all to the good. On the other hand, the requirements are awfully steep. The 3rd-level spells requirement means that basically have to play a sorcerer for the first half of the average campaign so you can play a warrior-mage for the latter half (and have a lot of catching up to do).
I like the tweaked pre-reqs that have been suggested ... something like "BAB +4, 2nd level spells, proficiency with all martial weapons" seems a lot more balanced. Again, that doesn't help the OP, alas.
-The Gneech
Yeah, but keep in mind you're talking about a 17th level character! Remember all WotC's famous market data that talks about how most games don't go past 9th-12th level? It's still true. How about, say, 7th level? How did the EK perform then? I can't speak for the OP, but my own experience suggests that if I was starting a game I'd want to play a viable warrior-mage *now*, as opposed to in a hypothetical 14+ levels that might not (probably won't?) come.
You're right, it is a high level character. What I said can't be used to say how a 7th level character will perform. I think the high level analysis is still important because it's at high levels where most PrCs come into their own. But yes, the weakness of my analysis is that is only one factor.
This particular game started at 14th level, and this character entered at 17th (to replace someone else) so I can't say how that character fared at 7th. Based on past experience I can say there would be a little struggling maybe early on--probably when building toward the EK more than when taking the class itself? (As you mention below)
But my guess is as good as anyone's. Someone can look at the numbers and say, "This will suck!" and someone else will do the same and say, "This will rule!"
The post I replied to said, "I haven't seen the EK in action." I have seen the EK in action, and they're rocking. That is all. Take that for what it is worth, with however much salt you feel is necessary.
If the conclusion here is that, "the EK is worth taking if the character is going to level up a lot" then that works for me.
For my 3.5 guy, spell failure was almost never a problem ... his problem was a big ol' glass jaw (making melee a pointless endeavor) and that spellcaster levels were hosed (nothing tickles a 9 hit die monster like a 1d4+1 magic missile). Looking at the PfRPG one, I see that his hit die and caster levels get a significant bump, which is all to the good.
Yep. Also, Arcane Armor Training, while not perfect, is also helpful (and Still Spell is often an important part of an EK's arsenal otherwise). It helps make a heavier melee build more viable.
On the other hand, the requirements are awfully steep. The 3rd-level spells requirement means that basically have to play a sorcerer for the first half of the average campaign so you can play a warrior-mage for the latter half (and have a lot of catching up to do).I like the tweaked pre-reqs that have been suggested ... something like "BAB +4, 2nd level spells, proficiency with all martial weapons" seems a lot...
I have a feeling it's a throwback to the idea that you shouldn't hit a Prestige Class until 6th or 7th level. There might be another way to manage that. I agree with you the 3rd level spells requirement is steep, and is why most people suggest a wizard-based EK (sorcerer does have its benefits though).
I sometimes also struggle with the "must be proficient with all Martial Weapons" because I think it might be interesting for a Bard to go straight into EK but they shouldn't have to dip into a warrior class to do that.
I think the issue, as I perceive it, is that the EK doesn't have combat features usable, due to action economy, to fight equal to an equal level Warrior, let alone a Fighter, Ranger or Paladin. Sure, loading up on miss chance spells helps some, but any character can buy a minor cloak of displacement. In addition, due to non-synergy of actions, the EK lags behind many 3/4 casters, like the bard, and the new alchemist and summoner. Further, the EK tends to compare poorly to the Dragon Disciple.
The EK can cast mirror image in every fight, but between that, greater heroism and haste, how many rounds does the EK have to buff for each fight? Consider that any equal level 3/4 BAB class, like the bard, or the new alchemist, can reasonably fight and still cast, without worrying about the action economy imposed by medium and higher armor proficiency feats.
I like the tweaked pre-reqs that have been suggested ... something like "BAB +4, 2nd level spells, proficiency with all martial weapons" seems a lot...
Yes, and I specifically suggested going that route (changing the prerequisites) because it has been shown in the past that James Jacobs is open to the idea of changing the prerequisites, as he came out and admitted that the Elf or Half Elf racial prereq for the Arcane Archer was an oversight and would likely be fixed via errata.
I don't think the EK is at all beyond salvage, I just think that the Prereqs need tweaked, and more options for the PrC via Feats or Traits need to be presented. Part of why I am anticipating the APG release is for the hints that were dropped about it containing neato new stuff for the Bard. I'm really hoping that some of this new stuff is presented via Feats, and that the EK was also taken into consideration when designing the Feats.
|
I actually agree with {snip} In anycase, rules you THINK should work a certain way does not make it so. This is a very RAW oriented DM and group...so the whole houseruling is not gonna happen in this...
But that's the whole point. The text says explicitly "while staffs wands and weapons must be wielded." If that was the end of the passage, your reading of the rules would be RAW and I would have no bones with your interpretation.
BUT
The very next sentence is "If the wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand..." You can't wear a staff or 2H weapon. YOu can have one in hand. By any logical reading of the text having it 'in hand' is sufficient.
By the by, there are multiple definitions for wielded. Take a look at this one that is consistent with the in hand reading
"to handle (as a tool) especially effectively". Note that the definition is to handle, especially effectively, not exclusively so. Having something in hand, IS handling it.
Now, you can choose to interpret the rules as you have and your dm can agree, but that doesn't make your position the only correct one. You may THINK the rules work the way you interpret them, but the RAW don't support that position. At best, the rule is muddled and open to multiple interpretations.
This particular game started at 14th level, and this character entered at 17th (to replace someone else) so I can't say how that character fared at 7th. Based on past experience I can say there would be a little struggling maybe early on--probably when building toward the EK more than when taking the class itself? (As you mention below)
But my guess is as good as anyone's. Someone can look at the numbers and say, "This will suck!" and someone else will do the same and say, "This will rule!"
The post I replied to said, "I haven't seen the EK in action." I have seen the EK in action, and they're rocking. That is all. Take that for what it is worth, with however much salt you feel is necessary.
Fair enough. :)
-TG
It's not very clear but I'd be happy to take 'in hand' as the requirement as a DM. Others, of course, may disagree, but if it helps a player make their concept and it isn't broken, I'll allow it.
If going the EK route and want heavier armor, take a sorcerer with Arcane Bloodline. The Metamagic Arcana ability can be used to apply Still Spell to the spell you cast with the EK's capstone ability, giving the EK a lot more flexibility.
this is an interesting idea, and would be all kinds of useful for grapples too. not quite as good as rune magic (Races of Stone), but not too bad. But, doesn't it make each and every standard action spell a full round? Is there a way to take away that action penalty in PF? PHBII and complete mage (IIRC) had some feats/class features to take care of this problem.
The post I replied to said, "I haven't seen the EK in action." I have seen the EK in action, and they're rocking. That is all. Take that for what it is worth, with however much salt you feel is necessary.
I too have played an EK, during the Alpha/Beta testing of Pathfinder. Here's the catch though, I had to use the 3.5 version.
Barbarian2/Undead Bloodline Sorcerer6/Eldritch Knight3~4
Again, it's a high level example. But she was fun, and filled out her character concept(and armor!) nicely. She was a pseudo-vampire, channeling vampiric touch through her bite attack(rage power).
I guess my point is give the Ek you're playing a concept, and you are probably going to have fun, which is the point of playing a game. A role-playing game at that.
|
|
A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.My understanding of this rule was that it is for large creatures using a normal sized double weapon in one hand. They are still two handed for regular people.
That's just my reading, YMMV, check with your DM, etc...
This is entirely correct - double weapons (at least 95%+ of them) must be wielded in two hands, just as any two-handed weapon must be. That is to say, unless you are larger size, making it a one-handed weapon for you. And should you wield that now one-handed weapon, in one hand, you cannot use it as a double weapon.
That´s what thought too...but read the last sentence on page 144. It does state that double weapons can be wielded one handed now.
|
|
Just because you can role-play it just fine doesn't mean there isn't a roll-play problem with it. Just saying.
I can roleplay Kratos all day long, but the rollplay isn't going to match up right. And when you are not accurately playing along with the stats on your sheet, you are failing to roleplay your character right. Playing a 10 Dex character as a paragon of grace is bad roleplaying.
|
|
I actually agree with {snip} In anycase, rules you THINK should work a certain way does not make it so. This is a very RAW oriented DM and group...so the whole houseruling is not gonna happen in this...
But that's the whole point. The text says explicitly "while staffs wands and weapons must be wielded." If that was the end of the passage, your reading of the rules would be RAW and I would have no bones with your interpretation.
BUT
The very next sentence is "If the wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand..." You can't wear a staff or 2H weapon. YOu can have one in hand. By any logical reading of the text having it 'in hand' is sufficient.
By the by, there are multiple definitions for wielded. Take a look at this one that is consistent with the in hand reading
"to handle (as a tool) especially effectively". Note that the definition is to handle, especially effectively, not exclusively so. Having something in hand, IS handling it.Now, you can choose to interpret the rules as you have and your dm can agree, but that doesn't make your position the only correct one. You may THINK the rules work the way you interpret them, but the RAW don't support that position. At best, the rule is muddled and open to multiple interpretations.
The trouble with your logic is that you feel that the next sentence use of in hand somehow negates wielded. You can...and usually need...to have an item in hand to wield them. You can very well have items in hand and not be wielding them however...like with the two handed weapon...as for a staff...read the last page of 144 like I said. Hunter was nice enough to put up with me on this point and you all are just ignoring his hard work.
Just because you can role-play it just fine doesn't mean there isn't a roll-play problem with it. Just saying.
Ah, that I can agree to. It happens sometimes, that you can't get the role-play to mix just right with the roll-play. But that's why I play free-form as well! ;P
I can roleplay Kratos all day long, but the rollplay isn't going to match up right. And when you are not accurately playing along with the stats on your sheet, you are failing to roleplay your character right. Playing a 10 Dex character as a paragon of grace is bad roleplaying.
+1 I saw this the last to Saturday RL games I've been in. 2 different characters, same player.
1)Ranger, Elf, Alignment unknown(proabably Chaotic Good). Int of 14. Remember that.
After a fight that left just about the entire party... dirty, we saw the people we saved using a waterskin to clean off. Think decanter of endless water on the low setting. I ask if I could use it to clean off, I get blasted back into a ... drainage ditch. He asks, gets a polite "No." and threatens to kill the NPC's if they don't give him the waterskin...
2)Chaotic Good, Half-Giant, Ranger again. Int of 10, Wis of 14. Can't figure out why his wooden club can't smash through the metal gate. Or why his arrows suck against the undead, even though they are his favored enemy. Or why he can't swim well in medium armor...
The trouble with your logic is that you feel that the next sentence use of in hand somehow negates wielded. You can...and usually need...to have an item in hand to wield them. You can very well have items in hand and not be wielding them however...like with the two handed weapon...as for a staff...read the last page of 144 like I said. Hunter was nice enough to put up with me on this point and you all are just ignoring his hard work.
Wield – verb – to handle or use (a weapon, tool, etc.)
handle – verb – to touch, lift, or hold with the handswhy is this still an issue...
To carry a TH weapon and cast, re-wielding your weapon is effectively the same as drawing it...either you have Quick Draw or you spend a move action. Releasing a hand is a free action...re-acquiring the weapon is not. You carry a TH weapon MUCH differently in one hand then in two.
==Aelryinth
What.
Dude, they're not saying you drop the weapon. They're saying you just let go for a bit.
Holding something with two hands instead of one isn't a move action. I can't even imagine how that would work. You'd have to be the slowest creature alive to take a move action just to grip more with one hand.
You're not thinking. Wielding a weapon is different from HOLDING a weapon. If what you are saying is that you are holding a bigass whatsis in one hand and waving your other hand around vigorously with your full attention, there is absolutely no freaking way that weapon is going to be ready and wielded when you put your other hand back on it. Grips shift, center of gravity changes, your stance is altered, etc. It's functionally no different then drawing a two handed weapon...you basically draw with one hand and put your hand on it as it swings into position. Now get rid of the sheathe, and the exact same thing is going on.
Sure, you can say you are holding onto it with two hands...but it isn't ready to be used. It's not WIELDED.
And double weapons are all TH weapons, it does NOT say you can wield them in one hand as single weapons. The later posters are correct...if you are big enough or have taken a feat where you can wield a TH weapon in one hand, you can't use a double weapon as a double weapon in one hand.
===Aelryinth