"Wait! this is not a thread about kinky caster sex?...this makes me a sad Demon Lord"
|
For the record, I think the EK is just fine. However:
Bards are not fighter/mages, they spend all their time singing.Incorrect, since they can be acting a dramatic part in an epic, scolding and insulting their opponent, or riverdancing in the middle of the duel. The limit to using a Bard as gish is the players/GMs imagination
The Duskblade solves this problem.
The REAL problem is a lack of synergy abilities. You either cast, or you attack, or you do some kind of Duskblade thing that makes dozens of DMs unfairly ban it outright.
Fighter/Rogue works because fighter abilities (armor, weapons) synergize with rogue abilities (sneak attack, flank). Rogue/Shadowdancer works (for synergy) because sneak attack and HiPS work together.
Some spells do work with meele, but not enough. Duskblade tries to fix this, but it does not really create any synergy. It creates a hybrid. It replaces the problem with another mechanic, not solve the problem.
I'm curious what things a Duskblade does that makes DMs ban them outright. Not in any wat a snarky question by the way ... I really am interested.
Duskblade has a few abilities that sound really super duper awesomely powerful, but in practice are just kinda "well that's nice I suppose"
In this case, it was Arcane Channeling, which let you use a touch spell as part of a standard attack (and part of a full attack at much, much later levels).
Sound powerful? It's not. Don't get me wrong - it's good, hell, it's the whole purpose of the class. But they didn't have wizard/sorc or even bard spell lists; they had their own spell list, which was much more limited. In the end, it was probably one of the better balanced classes in the game.
I don't recall the list but if I remember Duskblade had like 24 or 25 spells on his list total along 5 levels. Still he was an odd duck
I'm curious what things a Duskblade does that makes DMs ban them outright. Not in any wat a snarky question by the way ... I really am interested.
The very free interpretation of the Arcane Strike feat from Complete Warrior and the usual misreading Arcane Channeling (Full Attack).
That and a four level dip in Spellsword allows you to Disintegrate a guy up to three times in the same round, but it wasn't worth it.
Humbly,
Yawar
|
|
I'm curious what things a Duskblade does that makes DMs ban them outright. Not in any wat a snarky question by the way ... I really am interested.The very free interpretation of the Arcane Strike feat from Complete Warrior and the usual misreading Arcane Channeling (Full Attack).
That and a four level dip in Spellsword allows you to Disintegrate a guy up to three times in the same round, but it wasn't worth it.
Humbly,
Yawar
Hmmm ... Could you elaborate?
I don't recall the list but if I remember Duskblade had like 24 or 25 spells on his list total along 5 levels. Still he was an odd duck
There's that, too.
Duskblade had a small list of spells to choose from. He had an even SMALLER list of spells he could learn. He learned one new spell every level, and started with two level 1 spells. At level 20, he knew only 21 spells, and most were lower level.
|
Hmmm ... Could you elaborate?
I'm curious what things a Duskblade does that makes DMs ban them outright. Not in any wat a snarky question by the way ... I really am interested.The very free interpretation of the Arcane Strike feat from Complete Warrior and the usual misreading Arcane Channeling (Full Attack).
That and a four level dip in Spellsword allows you to Disintegrate a guy up to three times in the same round, but it wasn't worth it.
Humbly,
Yawar
3.5 arcane strike lets you burn spells for extra damage. It is a free action...so you could burn multiple spells for the extra damage...although the bonus to hit wouldn´t stack. I use it with my spellsword build quite a bit...but unless your REALLY going nova...you don´t see anything impressive...but then again when a wizard is going that nova, you see even more impressive things.
And as a spellsword with spell channel, there is MUCH better things to spell channel then damage :) .
The Eldritch Knight is the appropriate way of handling fighter/mages.
The main complaint about EKs seems to be the economy of swift actions. You can:
#1: Use swift action to use Arcane Armor Training to cast a spell in armor.
#2: Use swift action to use Arcane Strike to boost melee damage.
#3: Use swift action to cast Quickened Spell.
#4: Use swift action to employ capstone ability.
Basically, the EK forces the player to prioritize and accept some limitations - those limitations basically being your spell selection and application of metamagic feats.
In the early levels of EK, you have few worries. #3 and #4 don't exist, so the only problem is that you don't get the extra Arcane Strike damage on attacks of opportunity in the rounds you cast spells (b/c your swift action went to AAT/AAM).
At middle levels, #3 starts to conflict heavily with #1 and #2. Cast two spells a round? You'll need Verbal only or Stilled Spells to avoid armor penalties. Cast and melee? No extra damage from Arcane Strike, and the same limitations on your spells to avoid armor problems.
Then, you run into the capstone, which plays all hell with your priorities. Get a critical hit and bammo! Quickened spell without the level adjustment...but you have to save your swift action to do it. And you'll face armor failure chances.
Now, how to get around all this mess? The options aren't great, but they are there:
A.) Accept a 15% spell failure rate from time to time. If you're a gambling man, you can give up on AAT/AAM entirely. This is a better option for a sorcerer than a wizard.
B.) Don't wear armor. This leaves you much more vulnerable (Bracers of Armor +6 cost more than Mithril Breastplate +5) and you'll burn up lots more spells to compensate. Bracers +4 combined with a Light Mithril Shield +X provides some middle ground, though you need a free hand to cast...
C.) Use Still Spell...a LOT. This is basically giving up a full level of spellcasting (on top of the one you lost for going EK in the first place), but Adamantine Full Plate and a Heavy Shield? Go for it! You haven't lost caster level in doing this, just slots. You need never worry about the 'free hand' again, either.
Using option C, here's how a F1/W5/EK(x) stacks up against a Bard, spell wise (all EK spells Stilled, cantrips ignored).
EK1: BaB +4, 2/1 B7: BaB +5, 4/3/1
EK2: BaB +5, 3/2 B8: BaB +6, 4/4/2
EK3: BaB +6, 3/2/1 B9: BaB +6, 5/4/3
The EK's BaB is a bit behind, and his spells are way behind, but he's probably got top-tier AC and offense (full plate, shield or Two Handed Weapon). The EK doesn't spend feats on AAT/AAM, probably on boosting damage output, AC, or Hit Points.
Is heavy armor EK viable? It seems to be 3/4 BaB and 1/2 casting (once you take Still Spells into account), but it avoids armor failure and most of the economy of action things. His spellcasting is actually a little better, depending upon available Verbal only spells.
|
|
And more on topic...basically for PF only games gish needs 3 things.
1)A prestige class inline with the arcane archer for melee so that you can make your gish as casty or fighty as you like (with the EK being filler). For archer gish, you can make a fi 1/wi 5/ek 3/AA 4/ek 7 for a CL 17 with BAB 17 or do fi 6/wi 1/AA 10/ek 3 for a BAB 19 and a CL of 10. Since the EK is ALREADY a filler class, I honestly don´t see a problem with extending this mechanics to those of us who are melee oriented.
2)Somatic weaponry so they can have arcane bound weapons and/or fight with sword and shield or two weapons.
3)Practiced spellcaster so MC sucks a bit less.
Okay so the last isn´t REALLY needed...but the first two definitely is...and using 3.5 splat books, you do have everything you already need as wizards basically spent 8 patching this archetype up so you can kinda sorta build one that works....
And more on topic...basically for PF only games gish needs 3 things.
1)A prestige class inline with the arcane archer for melee so that you can make your gish as casty or fighty as you like (with the EK being filler). For archer gish, you can make a fi 1/wi 5/ek 3/AA 4/ek 7 for a CL 17 with BAB 17 or do fi 6/wi 1/AA 10/ek 3 for a BAB 19 and a CL of 10. Since the EK is ALREADY a filler class, I honestly don´t see a problem with extending this mechanics to those of us who are melee oriented.
2)Somatic weaponry so they can have arcane bound weapons and/or fight with sword and shield or two weapons.
3)Practiced spellcaster so MC sucks a bit less.
Okay so the last isn´t REALLY needed...but the first two definitely is...and using 3.5 splat books, you do have everything you already need as wizards basically spent 8 patching this archetype up so you can kinda sorta build one that works....
Honestly, for EK, I think the best change is just alter the capstone so that casting the spell is a free action instead of a swift one. It solves one of the bigger problems.
The issue I think a lot of people have with EK is the same - if other side of the coin - with AA. EK's prerequisites are very caster heavy. AA's requirements are very fightan heavy. In both cases, you're strongly pulled towards one direction or the other.
As for somatic weaponry, just ignore the post made about bound items forcing you to use two hands and you're good.
As for somatic weaponry, just ignore the post made about bound items forcing you to use two hands and you're good.
I agree I never saw that post, and will not use that rather odd ruleing
I agree I never saw that post, and will not use that rather odd ruleing
As for somatic weaponry, just ignore the post made about bound items forcing you to use two hands and you're good.
I'd just think that Bonded Objects are a specific case that overrules the general case of somatic casting. Most D&D class abilities and feats are just things that let you break general case rules in the first place. YMMV.
I'd just think that Bonded Objects are a specific case that overrules the general case of somatic casting. Most D&D class abilities and feats are just things that let you break general case rules in the first place. YMMV.I agree I never saw that post, and will not use that rather odd ruleing
As for somatic weaponry, just ignore the post made about bound items forcing you to use two hands and you're good.
He was meaning the ruling is ya can't use it in one hand and it "count" as having your bonded item. Totally oddball ruling IMO
The REAL problem is a lack of synergy abilities. You either cast, or you attack, or you do some kind of Duskblade thing that makes dozens of DMs unfairly ban it outright.Fighter/Rogue works because fighter abilities (armor, weapons) synergize with rogue abilities (sneak attack, flank). Rogue/Shadowdancer works (for synergy) because sneak attack and HiPS work together.
Some spells do work with meele, but not enough. Duskblade tries to fix this, but it does not really create any synergy. It creates a hybrid. It replaces the problem with another mechanic, not solve the problem.
What you say is lack of synergy abilities I term as intrinsic problems with action economy. A fighter gets a five ft step and 4 attacks OR moves 10 feet and gets just one. Casters always get ONE spell
One thing to make this more synergistic is to make a WHOLE bunch of spells that work on swift actions.
My solution is letting you give up an iterative attack and use a swift action to cast a spell at your caster level minus the iterative penalty of that attack. For example, a 5 Wiz/1 Ftr/10 EK with a CL of 14 and BAB of 13. He gets attacks at +13/+8/+3. He gives up his second iterative attack (made at BAB -5) to cast a spell at CL -5. Call it Improved Arcane Strike and give it an additional prereq of Combat Casting.
I am of the belief that the creation of a Fighter/Wizard PC like that of the old school Ftr/MU or Githyanki and to keep it balanced is very improbable.
The way multiclassing works now makes this so.
The balance built into the old 1ed version was:
1.They couldn't wear armor except Elven Chainmail and shields were out.
2. The Ftr/Mu had to divide its hit points buy two ie go up a fighter level and you get d10/2 hits.
3. You split your exps between both classes.
Point three is the real balance point. A Ftr/Mu was always going to be "weaker" than a single classed character with the same number of exps. You got full casting, you got full BAB but you were allways going to be a couple (or more) levels behind everyone else. So in a party of 8th levels the Ftr/Mu would be 4th/4th or the like.
The way multiclassing works now the prime point of balance has been removed and therefore has made combining a Chalk/Cheese class problematic. This is trure to a certain extent with all multiclass PCs but the synergies between non Chalk/Cheese tend to make this less of an issue.
|
|
I am of the belief that the creation of a Fighter/Wizard PC like that of the old school Ftr/MU or Githyanki and to keep it balanced is very improbable.
The way multiclassing works now makes this so.
The balance built into the old 1ed version was:
1.They couldn't wear armor except Elven Chainmail and shields were out.
2. The Ftr/Mu had to divide its hit points buy two ie go up a fighter level and you get d10/2 hits.
3. You split your exps between both classes.Point three is the real balance point. A Ftr/Mu was always going to be "weaker" than a single classed character with the same number of exps. You got full casting, you got full BAB but you were allways going to be a couple (or more) levels behind everyone else. So in a party of 8th levels the Ftr/Mu would be 4th/4th or the like.
The way multiclassing works now the prime point of balance has been removed and therefore has made combining a Chalk/Cheese class problematic. This is trure to a certain extent with all multiclass PCs but the synergies between non Chalk/Cheese tend to make this less of an issue.
Your assuming that the 1st and 2nd ed fi/mg MC system was balanced...it wasn´t. Hence why they didn´t bring the same system over. In fact the main reason you see such reluctance to give that archetype anything is the idea that it´s broken...despite the fact that currently it gets squat. It took WotC 8 years to figure that out and fix the various issues with it. I´m just kinda sad that PF seems to be refusing to learn from those mistakes.
My biggest issue with EK isn't the swift actions. It's that I really don't want to spend 5 levels as wizard. I don't really care about have the high level spells but more just some spells for utility and self buffing before a fight.
Also I'd skip armor, not worth the fight.
|
|
And more on topic...basically for PF only games gish needs 3 things.
1)A prestige class inline with the arcane archer for melee so that you can make your gish as casty or fighty as you like (with the EK being filler). For archer gish, you can make a fi 1/wi 5/ek 3/AA 4/ek 7 for a CL 17 with BAB 17 or do fi 6/wi 1/AA 10/ek 3 for a BAB 19 and a CL of 10. Since the EK is ALREADY a filler class, I honestly don´t see a problem with extending this mechanics to those of us who are melee oriented.
2)Somatic weaponry so they can have arcane bound weapons and/or fight with sword and shield or two weapons.
3)Practiced spellcaster so MC sucks a bit less.
Okay so the last isn´t REALLY needed...but the first two definitely is...and using 3.5 splat books, you do have everything you already need as wizards basically spent 8 patching this archetype up so you can kinda sorta build one that works....
Honestly, for EK, I think the best change is just alter the capstone so that casting the spell is a free action instead of a swift one. It solves one of the bigger problems.
The issue I think a lot of people have with EK is the same - if other side of the coin - with AA. EK's prerequisites are very caster heavy. AA's requirements are very fightan heavy. In both cases, you're strongly pulled towards one direction or the other.
As for somatic weaponry, just ignore the post made about bound items forcing you to use two hands and you're good.
The thing is I gave two extremes...but you can mix the EK and AA up however you like to get the level fighty and casty you want. If there is a generic melee version of the AA, then we could do the same for pretty much any fighter/mage ideas we may have. That is a better solution then to do a plethora of base classes and rule bloat. Because honestly I hear NO major complaints nor do I have any major complaints if I wanna make a archery based fighter/mage because of this. The minor thing is that you need to be an elf or half elf. Oh and you can´t bind your bow...
The somatic weaponry isn´t just for two handed weapons though. What about two weapon fighting? Or using a shield? Besides which, while you can just houserule away in your own campaign, that doesn´t preclude that it will be so in ALL games...and any standardized play will not have such a houserule as well. So having official ways to deal with these issues is a good thing.
Your assuming that the 1st and 2nd ed fi/mg MC system was balanced...it wasn´t. Hence why they didn´t bring the same system over. In fact the main reason you see such reluctance to give that archetype anything is the idea that it´s broken...despite the fact that currently it gets squat. It took WotC 8 years to figure that out and fix the various issues with it. I´m just kinda sad that PF seems to be refusing to learn from those mistakes.I am of the belief that the creation of a Fighter/Wizard PC like that of the old school Ftr/MU or Githyanki and to keep it balanced is very improbable.
The way multiclassing works now makes this so.
The balance built into the old 1ed version was:
1.They couldn't wear armor except Elven Chainmail and shields were out.
2. The Ftr/Mu had to divide its hit points buy two ie go up a fighter level and you get d10/2 hits.
3. You split your exps between both classes.Point three is the real balance point. A Ftr/Mu was always going to be "weaker" than a single classed character with the same number of exps. You got full casting, you got full BAB but you were allways going to be a couple (or more) levels behind everyone else. So in a party of 8th levels the Ftr/Mu would be 4th/4th or the like.
The way multiclassing works now the prime point of balance has been removed and therefore has made combining a Chalk/Cheese class problematic. This is trure to a certain extent with all multiclass PCs but the synergies between non Chalk/Cheese tend to make this less of an issue.
What I see is different now is people not accepting the fact that their Ftr/Mu is 4th/4th in a party of 8th levels but wanting that PC to be equal in "power". With a Chalk/Cheese PC there is great difficulty due to the lack of synergy.
Mr Chalk is based around wearing heavy armor using a great heavy weapon or a sword and shield and doesn't cast spells because of the armor penalty. He is really good at being swingy-death and has the hits to soak damage up.
Mr Cheese doesn't wear much but a robe 'cause anything else gets in the way of what he does, casting spells. He can't hit anything but the side of a barn and hasn't swung anything around more dangerous than a big stick. His blasty spells or Summoned Critters do the damage for him and a few hits with a fruit knife will bring him down.
The two are total opposites and this is the real issue with trying to build a Ftr/Mu. Pathfinder has done a lot to ease the pain the old 1ed Ftr/Mu had. You have feats to allow armor use, mithril bucklers, multiclassing Hit Points aren't divided by the number of classes. But what can never got around is class synergy and there, for me, lies the problem.
Now I'm not saying Game Designers should have put more thought into it and I'm not suggesting play a Bard. I have no answer for the problem because I don't know what the problem is. Ask ten players what they want to see as a Ftr/Mu class and you will probably get ten different answers. All I know as an old school player and DM it is easier now to build a playable Ftr/Mu using Pathfinder than it ever was under the old rules and this is a positive step forward.
Cold Napalm: The minor thing is that you need to be an elf or half elf. Oh and you can´t bind your bow...
James has said that the racial requirement for Arcane Archer is a copy and paste mistake and is dropped in the errata.
However the bow thing...that is a clanger which should be dropped.
|
|
Good thing to know about the errata.
As for fi/mages in 1st and 2nd...they were extremely easy to make viable in those edition. Yes you could only wear elven chain...but you could actually use a shield with problems. Other then HP, you got the best of each class for being 1 level behind. They were MORE then viable in those games.
|
|
I don't think that there should be any situation possible where a Fighter/Mage of a given xp total should be as good as a pure Fighter or pure Mage of equal xp.
Any class that attempts to do so is inherently bad for a game unless you wish to remove the parent classes altogether.
Lets face it if this hybrid or gestalt is the equal to either of the parents and then brings additional functionality to the party as well then why not just have this class - take two of them and replace the Fighter and the Mage.
This, I believe is why the EK and to an extent the AA seem somewhat nerfed.
You all need to remember something about PrC in Pathfinder - they are NOT meant to be better than the core classes, just different. They bring something different to the group than the core classes but they are never meant to replace them.
If you find that they are lacking then apply rule 0 and make up what ever classes you want - its your game play it how you wish.
But no one can come along and insist that the game designer is wrong in his/her approach. They posted their reasoning why they did what they did , and in one case were promptly cross examined as if they were on trial!
Sure the spiel about the EK made it sound like they were some mega powerful mofo smiting foes with sword and spell leaving charred husks behind them but thats all it is - spiel.
I also dislike the fact that even after a post by the designer requesting that the term being used here for a fighter/mage should not be the same as a propriety intellectual name belonging to another company, the majority of posters STILL insist on using the term.
Come on people we are guests on these boards. The designers have made their feelings clear about what they think a Fighter/Mage should be. They have made it clear that they do not want the current term used.
You have made your point and they responded. Attempting to repeat the same old tired arguments until they give in is only going to get them annoyed with you.
Use this energy creatively - write another chapter to your campaign background, design your own class that will do what you want it to do, just don't waste any more time or bandwidth on flogging the proverbial dead horse.
|
|
I don't think that there should be any situation possible where a Fighter/Mage of a given xp total should be as good as a pure Fighter or pure Mage of equal xp.
Any class that attempts to do so is inherently bad for a game unless you wish to remove the parent classes altogether.
Lets face it if this hybrid or gestalt is the equal to either of the parents and then brings additional functionality to the party as well then why not just have this class - take two of them and replace the Fighter and the Mage.
This, I believe is why the EK and to an extent the AA seem somewhat nerfed.
You all need to remember something about PrC in Pathfinder - they are NOT meant to be better than the core classes, just different. They bring something different to the group than the core classes but they are never meant to replace them.If you find that they are lacking then apply rule 0 and make up what ever classes you want - its your game play it how you wish.
But no one can come along and insist that the game designer is wrong in his/her approach. They posted their reasoning why they did what they did , and in one case were promptly cross examined as if they were on trial!
Sure the spiel about the EK made it sound like they were some mega powerful mofo smiting foes with sword and spell leaving charred husks behind them but thats all it is - spiel.
I also dislike the fact that even after a post by the designer requesting that the term being used here for a fighter/mage should not be the same as a propriety intellectual name belonging to another company, the majority of posters STILL insist on using the term.
Come on people we are guests on these boards. The designers have made their feelings clear about what they think a Fighter/Mage should be. They have made it clear that they do not want the current term used.
You have made your point and they responded. Attempting to repeat the same old tired arguments until they give in is only going to get them annoyed with you.
Use this energy creatively - write...
1) NOBODY is arguing that the fi/mage be as good as both a fighter and a mage of equal level. What is being argued is if you can be VIABLE with such a build. And the people I know who make a hobby of game design says no for PF core...that is also true of 3.0 and 3.5 core. With all the splat books it does however become viable with a few key items like somatic weaponry and a couple of PrC like the spellsword and abjurant champion...the other stuff is gravy, but you NEED these to make a viable character of the archetype that is good enough to make it through an AP without being a drain on the other party members for TOO long of a period.
2) The EK does NOT do what the game designer set out to do. It is an epic fail as a stand alone PrC. Along with the game design of bonded weapons and the lack of somatic weaponry in core, there is rather ample examples that the game designers made some serious errors in this area and it´s not working like what they are saying it should work like. It is not rude to point out errors.
3) Yes you can rule 0...unless your in organized play. Besides which, how many gamers do you think has enough grasp of game design theories that they can easily make a balanced PrC? Even the people at WotC and paizo who are professional had/have some SEVER issues with this...you expect your average gamer to do better?
4) There is a good reason the AA has such a lower rate of complaint...see my post above using the EK as a filler for whatever kind of AA you wanna build. That is a good game design...even if it was purely accidental.
1) NOBODY is arguing that the fi/mage be as good as both a fighter and a mage of equal level. What is being argued is if you can be VIABLE with such a build.
VIABLE = Weasel word.
Just how good is viable? I could argue they are viable right now, you'd argue they aren't. Bards combine melee & casting, so just play one - you can dress it in all the fluff and cheese you like and bingo.Whilst NOBODY has come forward (so far that I have seen) and said they want 100% parity, none have been up front about suggesting just how close they are asking to be matched... only that status quo isn't good enough.
Whats viable? 99%?
If I go to Pizza Hut and ask for a 'half hawaiian - half supreme', I dont get 75%-99% of a pizza of each.
|
|
1) NOBODY is arguing that the fi/mage be as good as both a fighter and a mage of equal level. What is being argued is if you can be VIABLE with such a build.VIABLE = Weasel word.
Just how good is viable? I could argue they are viable right now, you'd argue they aren't. Bards combine melee & casting, so just play one - you can dress it in all the fluff and cheese you like and bingo.Whilst NOBODY has come forward (so far that I have seen) and said they want 100% parity, none have been up front about suggesting just how close they are asking to be matched... only that status quo isn't good enough.
Whats viable? 99%?
If I go to Pizza Hut and ask for a 'half hawaiian - half supreme', I dont get 75%-99% of a pizza of each.
And your using a strawman...other then your opinion that it´s viable now...I would like you provide some hard data that it is however since pretty much everyone who says otherwise has given a rather plethora of statistics, while those that says it´s fine now just keep you going on with the same strawman arguments.
And bards are NOT a fi/mage to MANY players. Even ignoring that they have skill monkey mechanics more then fighter mechanics, they don´t have vanican magic system...those of us who want a fighter/WIZARD just can´t use the bard for what we want...period.
As for the pizza hut example, half and half works when they are equal in value...what you get with a straight split in the current MC system is asking for half Hawaiian and half supreme and getting charged the price of 2 pizza and getting one and a half...neither of which you really wanted in the first place, and you feel ripped off at the end.
And your using a strawman...other then your opinion that it´s viable now...
What strawman? do you even know what strawman means?
There's a Bard. No one is arguing the Bard is broken and doesn't work.
Similarly there are EK and AA and these 'work' too.
Your plethora of statistics may well show that there are some discrepancies between a Core and a Hybrid, as well there should be.
What you guys all seem to be avoiding, however, is backing up your claim of exactly what it is you want. If we can reduce a class down to stats (which we can) the question being put to you is 'Exactly how much (as a percentage) do you believe you should be able to parallel that Core class with your Hybrid? Don't say what you don't want - tell us what you DO.
Between Bards, AA, and EK, the F/MU class is pretty much covered.
Is heavy armor EK viable? It seems to be 3/4 BaB and 1/2 casting (once you take Still Spells into account), but it avoids armor failure and most of the economy of action things. His spellcasting is actually a little better, depending upon available Verbal only spells.
Ok, I went combing through the rulebook to find non-Somatic spells, and was actually surprised. It's not the world's greatest spell selection, but there _are_ worthwhile spells there, even (especially!) at the low levels. Here they are:
Level 0: Flare, Light
Level 1: Feather Fall, True Strike, Ventriloquism
Level 2: Blindness/Deafness, Blur, Darkness, Knock
Level 3: Displacement, Suggestion, Tongues
Level 4: Dimension Door, Lesser Geas, Shout
Level 5: Contact Other Plane*, Teleport
Level 6: Geas*, Mass Suggestion
Level 7: Power Word Blind, Greater Teleport, Teleport Object
Level 8: Irresistible Dance, Power Word Stun
Level 9: Power Word Kill, Prismatic Sphere, Teleportation Circle*, Wail of the Banshee
*Long casting time makes these spells irrelevant, just so you know.
Not the greatest list, as you might expect, but almost every level has at least ONE spell you might use regularly or can adapt tactics around. The remaining spell slots can be used for Still Spell slots as desired. What's actually quite nice is the viable spell choices at the lower levels (0-3), where you'll be living in the land of it-sucks-to-be-you fighter/wizard hybrid.
I think it's possible to forget about Arcane Armor Training/Mastery entirely; replace those feats with Still Spell (and perhaps Eschew Materials, sorcerers rejoice), wear the heaviest freaking armor you can afford and don't worry about needing a free hand or blowing Swift Actions to cast spells. Then all you have to worry about is choosing between Arcane Strike or Quickened Spells (through probably quickened stilled to be honest) for the first 15 levels of life.
Note you could also include long term buffs (1 hour or 10 min/level) to the above list of spells, as you have time to take off the armor as you like.
The problem with what people want with a fighter mage is several people have different ideas about what is good and isn't.
Indeed, which is why we have THREE classes that cover that angle and people still want more :p
Indeed, which is why we have THREE classes that cover that angle and people still want more :pThe problem with what people want with a fighter mage is several people have different ideas about what is good and isn't.
No you don't. You have zero.
You have a bard, which is nothing like a fighter/mage. He doesn't have a decent BAB and his spells largely don't help him fight better. All of this is besides the flavor part. Stop mentioning bards, no one likes bards.
And you have two prestige classes. AA only works for ranged stuff, otherwise if you tweaked it for melee it would honestly represent what I personally want in a gish class, but it still take until 8th level to become one and since most campaigns only run to 13-15 that's a serious commitment to being a lump for most of your career.
I'd quite like a F/MU (as you put it) base class, with a specific spell selection as not to step on other classes' toes, and with abilities that let it "stab stuff magically" like a Paladin or Ye Olde Duskblade did.
No you don't. You have zero.
You have a bard, which is nothing like a fighter/mage. He doesn't have a decent BAB and his spells largely don't help him fight better. All of this is besides the flavor part. Stop mentioning bards, no one likes bards.
I have to disagree ya have 3 and ya just pointed out the flaw of most folks wanting to have a F/M base class. Ya don't see medium BAB as "good" ya just said it sucked so you will prob never see the full BAB F/M ya want from paizo as it's really unreasonable to be honest
And if Paizo did half caster folks would whine over "he can't cast spells at level 1!" so yeah I don't think anything reasonable can make most of yall happy to be honest
I suspect (and hope!) that the 'antipaladin' base Blackguard class is going to turn out to be a sweet, sweet magical martial mystery tour.
while neat I don't see this at all. We know it's CE for starters so most likely worships s demon lord of some CE god an not an arcane based class. And as I said above folks would whine it didn't get spells from level 1.
|
while neat I don't see this at all. We know it's CE for starters so most likely worships s demon lord of some CE god an not an arcane based class. And as I said above folks would whine it didn't get spells from level 1.I suspect (and hope!) that the 'antipaladin' base Blackguard class is going to turn out to be a sweet, sweet magical martial mystery tour.
Oh, I don't expect it to be *arcane.* Antipaladin suggests a reversed paladin, which would be divine, but still magical, with damaging channeling options, some sort of harm touch + impose conditions (malices instead of mercies?) replacing lay on hands, etc.
But yeah, if it followed the paladin, it wouldn't get spells until 4th level, and be stuck for the first three levels using smites, negative channels and / or harm touch + malices.
Which I think would be fine, but may seem to want everything. Not everyone but enough to never be happy. Harming touch and malice's do sound fun though
|
|
Between Bards, AA, and EK, the F/MU class is pretty much covered.
No, no it´s not...by a LONG shot. If I want a skill monkey/enchanter sorcerer then I have a bard. If I want an archery fi/mage...well then yeah I agree, I´m covered for pretty much any set up I want. I want a sword and shield fi/wizard...I´m BONED. HARDCORE. Same if I decide to use two weapon fighting...or even use two handed weapon and use the weapon as a bonded weapon. I listed what I want to make any level of fighter/mage viable...your just blatantly ignoring it.
Oh and yes if I want a summoner fi/sorcerer the summoner in APG kick some serious arse. But once again if I want a wizard, I´m boned.
No you don't. You have zero.
You have a bard, which is nothing like a fighter/mage. He doesn't have a decent BAB and his spells largely don't help him fight better. All of this is besides the flavor part. Stop mentioning bards, no one likes bards.
I have to disagree ya have 3 and ya just pointed out the flaw of most folks wanting to have a F/M base class. Ya don't see medium BAB as "good" ya just said it sucked so you will prob never see the full BAB F/M ya want from paizo as it's really unreasonable to be honest
And if Paizo did half caster folks would whine over "he can't cast spells at level 1!" so yeah I don't think anything reasonable can make most of yall happy to be honest
You don't think so based on....? Oh that's right, your own preconcieved notions and a wonky idea of balance. Is Paladin overpowered? How many times do I have to bring this up?
For one the idea of arcane casters not being able to cast in armor is an anachronism at this point, as there are many fictional examples of armored casters anyway.
What your argument, and indeed the argument of those who don't want a proper gish class, appears to be that ANY arcane spellcasting (but not divine spellcasting) is intrinsically more powerful than anything other classes get at that level. It's not. It all has to do with spell SELECTION, and if you limit spell selection as to not step on a wiz/sor/bard's toes but to be unique unto itself then you'll be fine.
Another design point is that you can have a 3/4 BAB class with FULL CASTING (Cleric/Druid) but as soon someone wants a Full BAB with 3/4 casting you go all crazy. It would be fine, the skies will not fall.
Let's take druid actually and examine it. It's a class that can easily fill multiple roles in a party. You can do a lot of physical damage when wildshaped, and with the right skill selection can easily fill the same role as a tracker/survival guide. You can also heal, ok not as good as a Cleric and certainly not as strong as a Healing doman cleric (oh unless you take the healing doman, which you can) but still very strong. You can blast as well, and have a load of good utility spells, going up to 9th level. They are a very strong and versatile class, but the balancing point (I would argue) is that they can't do it all at once, they can't heal at the same time as pouncing on an enemy, but they can easily do it all.
What I would ask for in a gish class is warrior BAB, either paladin or bard level spells with a spell selection specifically designed for combat buffing and enhancing melee damage. I'd also like some magical resource, perhaps similar to smite, to add damage to my attacks maybe elemental in nature. Icing on the cake would be a way at medium to high levels to give up SOME combat ability (losing an attack) on the fly to be able to cast a low level utility spell. If it's not a full casting class then quicken metamagic becomes untenable, so some other way perhaps as I have suggested earlier in this thread. The EK capstone kind of does this, but only for offensive spells, only at very high levels, only on a crit, and only if you hadn't already used any of the new PF synergistic feats that round (Arcane Strike for one).
Now all these things can be said to take place in the arcane archer PrC, which is one of my favorite of the PF revamps, but it's sadly only for archery. If we could see something THAT well written but tweaked for melee I think many would be sated. However the Bard and the EK leave much to be desired IMHO.
Please, get it out of your head now that those of us who want to play an arcane warrior "want everything" or will never be happy. I feel I'm nothing if not reasonable about my desire to see MY favorite fictional heroic archetype brought to life in Pathfinder core.
What I would ask for in a gish class is warrior BAB
Yet...
1) NOBODY is arguing that the fi/mage be as good as both a fighter and a mage of equal level. What is being argued is if you can be VIABLE with such a build.
Looks like FULL to me.
And seeing as you mention the Paladin, I guess that gives you ANOTHER option toward some kind of Fighter/Caster, and Rangers too!
Bard - denounce it all you want, they are combat capable - see the Optimisation guide by Treantmonk. The baseless attack on the poor Bard is unwarranted.
EK
AA
If you want to make an Arcane Paladin then I reckon that would be a nice step forward, just remember to keep the metric payload of drawbacks (ie Code etc)
I'm not really sure what's supposed to be accomplished by yelling at people that they should just shut up and be happy with the classes they got. Clearly there's still an itch that isn't being scratched for a good number of people.
What I would ask for in a gish class is warrior BABYet...
1) NOBODY is arguing that the fi/mage be as good as both a fighter and a mage of equal level. What is being argued is if you can be VIABLE with such a build.Looks like FULL to me.
You need to try reading that again. He didn't argue that no one wanted a full BAB gish class. If you think that being a full BAB class is the same as being as good as a fighter then that's the same as saying bonus feats/armor/weapon training are worth nothing whatsoever. They are worth quite a bit. The question is how much spellcasting is 11 feats and sundry other combat abilities worth. What I'm talking about, and I suspect that Cold Napalm is as well, is a character that makes up for his lack of feats in magical ways to enhance himself in combat. Someone who will likely play second fiddle to the combat capability of a Fighter, but who makes up for it with spellcasting versatility.
Do you comprehend?
Nice, but there's no suggestion that all the feats would be disappearing in his model, and given the game is centred around the midlevels, the real implication of feat loss is far less significant than the 11 you suggest (which would be about the time a new char was rolled anyway)
If we presume that he is sub-par to the Fighter, but can self-buff away this problem, are we suggesting then that this would consume his allowance of 'spells', or are you suggesting that once he self-buffed to parity he would still have a pile of spells at his disposal that the Fighter would not?
|
|
What I would ask for in a gish class is warrior BABYet...
1) NOBODY is arguing that the fi/mage be as good as both a fighter and a mage of equal level. What is being argued is if you can be VIABLE with such a build.Looks like FULL to me.
And seeing as you mention the Paladin, I guess that gives you ANOTHER option toward some kind of Fighter/Caster, and Rangers too!
Bard - denounce it all you want, they are combat capable - see the Optimisation guide by Treantmonk. The baseless attack on the poor Bard is unwarranted.
EK
AA
If you want to make an Arcane Paladin then I reckon that would be a nice step forward, just remember to keep the metric payload of drawbacks (ie Code etc)
I don´t know where to begin...
1) Using DM fiat as a balancing measure against mechanical power is utter crap game design. Not that the paladin is exactly an uber powerhouse.
2) Paladin and rangers are both fighter/divine hybrids...yes they are fighter/casters...but we want a gish, a fighter/arcane. So they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
3) I know how good a bard can be at combat...but so can a well made rogue...that doesn´t make the rogue a fighter now does it. Being good at combat isn´t the issue anyways...if your after just fighting and casting and being good, there is the druid and cleric...but that isn´t what we are after either. We aren´t saying the bard isn´t good enough in anycase, the case is the bard doesn´t fit mechanically (spont. casting, skill monkey, enchantment heavy spell list...etc etc.). Some also don´t like the fluff...but that is easier to change up unless your in organized play where they can be more strict about such things.
3) Full BAB does not equal a fighter. You know those silly things called feats? And class abilities? Unless you are of the opinion that the paladin and ranger is full of broken...umm yeah...
Nice, but there's no suggestion that all the feats would be disappearing in his model, and given the game is centred around the midlevels, the real implication of feat loss is far less significant than the 11 you suggest (which would be about the time a new char was rolled anyway)
If we presume that he is sub-par to the Fighter, but can self-buff away this problem, are we suggesting then that this would consume his allowance of 'spells', or are you suggesting that once he self-buffed to parity he would still have a pile of spells at his disposal that the Fighter would not?
If we compare my example Arcane Warrior with a level 10 fighter, the fighter will still edge out 6 bonus feats which is not insignificant.
Let us assume a warrior base attack, no bonus feats or access to Specialization onward in fighter only feats. Already his to hit and damage is less than a similarly built fighter. Instead, however, he can use his class ability to hit his enemy with a low level spell (each attack on a full attack gets a Magic Missile maybe). Or an ability to let him add his level in elemental damage to his hits or perhaps +1d6 for every 4 levels in this class (so it won't multiply on a crit). He competes with a fighter, but won't have as many tricks in combat. Give him a D8 hit die, medium armor proficiency but ability to cast spells in it, and no tower shields. Now let him have buff spells (Bulls Strength, Haste, True Strike, Shield) and some general utility (Detect Magic, Identify, Dispel Magic, Teleport) but of course not until a higher level since he's on a Bard-like spell progression.
We end up with a fun class that uses magic in combat, but at the cost of combat prowess/attacks and at a much lower level than an equivalent straight-caster. We could even have a cool flavor, like instead of tied to good/evil like a paladin/blackguard he is tied to an element and has a spell selection based on his allegiance. Just thinking aloud now.
That's just my personal preference. It seems Cold Napalm likes the end result of the EK (17 BAB, 17 CL) but doesn't like not being able to participate in combat while leveling up, which is a perfectly legitimate complaing. If you want to play someone who is both a caster and a warrior, but not 100% both, having to be 100% caster for easily 1/4-1/3 of your career is crap. We have had these design decisions that classes have to be full/75%/or half BAB, full/bard/or paladin spell progression among other things for 10 years now and some of them are rather clunky. PrCs to mix two classes is sort of a bandaid really, because if you want to play an EK, being a wizard for 5 levels sucks.