Gaming Kinks - Gishes / Magic-Users Crossed With Warriors are Awesome or Untenable. Discuss


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Full BAB and 2/3rds casting is to much. If ya want full BAB you should be limited to a half caster. If ya want 2/3rd caster your stuck with medium BAB

Look guys it's VERY unlikely your getting full BAB and better then half caster not with arcane spells. The bard is a good starting point for balance of arcane and fighting. If ya want more fighting ya get less casting, kinda that simple.

Again not saying your wrong for wanting what ya want, but most of yall are never gonna be happy with anything put out as no matter what it won't be the F/M class ya want. Some folks might be pleases but as the core classes have shown us ya can't pleases everyone.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Full BAB and 2/3rds casting is to much. If ya want full BAB you should be limited to a half caster. If ya want 2/3rd caster your stuck with medium BAB

Look guys it's VERY unlikely your getting full BAB and better then half caster not with arcane spells. The bard is a good starting point for balance of arcane and fighting. If ya want more fighting ya get less casting, kinda that simple.

The bard though, isn't a fighter/mage. It's a fighter/skill monkey/mage. Personally, I see it as having more skill monkey aspects than fighter aspects anyway.

I think it's fine to have full BAB and 2/3 casting, as long as the spell list is limited and as long as it doesn't gain skill monkey abilities. Half-caster might work too, or even better, as long as it gains good arcane abilities. However, it would be a gish that can't cast until level 4, and requires either spell level adjustments or lack of several very fitting (and not overpowered) spells.

I think 2/3 casting is fine as long as we keep the best spells out. Especially the no-save-you-suck-multiple target spells like grease.

Liberty's Edge

Why don't those that want this "idea" of a Fighter/MagicUser that isn't filled by Bard/EK/AA create some basic write-up of what the 20 level class would basically look like. I think once it's in a write-up and compared to existing core classes, the true viability of the ideas can be assessed.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Full BAB and 2/3rds casting is to much. If ya want full BAB you should be limited to a half caster. If ya want 2/3rd caster your stuck with medium BAB

No, it's not. Full BAB and full casting wouldn't be too much, and half BAB and limited casting could work just fine. The base stats are the least important part of the class; class features and the spell list (if any) are much more important.


A Man In Black wrote:
The base stats are the least important part of the class; class features and the spell list (if any) are much more important.

I SO agree with this!

It's all about the features and creating a synergy between the inherent concepts (arcane and warrior - I REFUSE to use Gish any more!) FAR outweighs raw BAB/spell progression.

This is NOT to say they are unimportant, but they are less important than the above. The features and such should be ironed out first, and THEN work outwards toward the other elements, IMO. The other things are easy to adjust/balance in a way the features are not. "caster level" on it's own doesn't mean much. But casting requirements/nature of the caster, etc all are limiting factors on the utility of casting. Then there's still spell lists - depending what's on the list (and NO ONE'S saying a core Arcane Warrior should "do it all" near as I can tell), can make it powerful, or hardly a factor. Look at Sorcerer vs. Wizard - the one is a hindrance, and the other is a selling point - BUT it's balanced after the core of the features were set into place (ie: spell capacities in their case).

Everything else can be adjusted to fall into place AFTER the primary features are settled and locked down.


Shifty wrote:
meatrace wrote:
What I would ask for in a gish class is warrior BAB

Yet...

Cold Napalm wrote:
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)

Have you actually read treantmonk's optimization guide? He specifically states that the melee combat bard has significant difficulties and will be significantly outclassed by both the ranged bard and the controller bard. If anything his guide supports that the bard doesnt fit the fighter caster role.

EK and AA are not useful for most games. Because most, including those that are supported by paizo's AP's start at level 1 and dont go very deep into prestige class levels. Council of thieves goes what? 1-14? You are spending half the game outside of prestige class range. EK and AA do very little for those games. My group and many others spend ALOT of time at low levels. By the time anyone gets a couple levels into EK or AA and the character starts getting good the game is just about over. These are non-solutions in my book.

There is ample divine fighter/casters. We know that. The cleric is the first, followed by the paladin, inquisitor, ranger, druid, and oracle. All of these classes can fight and cast divine spells.

Arcane does not have these classes, if you (like me) exclude the bard, since it has a completely different focus then melee combat, there are none- zero - nadda. I am talking about BASE classes. I intentionally exclude prestige classes, as to be honest, they simply do not work. Particularly for mixed classes, but even in general, i'd rather a few new flexible base classes then prestige classes any day of the week. Its easier to balance in terms of rules and you get to be whatever it is you are going to be from day one. And not spend months of actual time being the same old class, that isnt yet what you want it to be.


Kolokotroni wrote:


Arcane does not have these classes, if you (like me) exclude the bard, since it has a completely different focus then melee combat, there are none- zero - nadda. I am talking about BASE classes.

Except for the Alchemist, which, while she does not cast spells, does prepare extracts (like a wizard prepares spells), keep a formula book (like a wizard keeps a spellbook), buff herself with magic to become a reasonable combatant (with a selected spell list that includes transmutation and some personal illusion spells, and mutagens). I suggest that the alchemist is actually the arcane equivalent of the wildshape druid. I further suggest that the summoner is the arcane equivalent of the summoning, caster druid.

Now, this still leaves a lot of the arcane spells which synergize with melee out, and the person who wants an evoking meleer out in the cold. But ignoring the non-Vancian arcane meleeist that exist just because they do not cast spells exactly like a wizard with the spell list you want is perhaps a touch unfair. I personally do not disagree that a melee equivalent of the AA PRC would be great, that can use somatic weaponry, that gets an action discount (from swift to free) on the arcane armor feats, and that can cast some selection of spells through a weapon, like the AA PRC can cast spells through an arrow, and can make their weaponry and maybe their armor do magical things as they level up. Strip out however many caster levels as necessary from a design perspective, but this might plug the gap the way the AA does for archer mages.

Grand Lodge

Somatic weaponry doesn't negate any ASF.


TreeLynx wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:


Arcane does not have these classes, if you (like me) exclude the bard, since it has a completely different focus then melee combat, there are none- zero - nadda. I am talking about BASE classes.

Except for the Alchemist, which, while she does not cast spells, does prepare extracts (like a wizard prepares spells), keep a formula book (like a wizard keeps a spellbook), buff herself with magic to become a reasonable combatant (with a selected spell list that includes transmutation and some personal illusion spells, and mutagens). I suggest that the alchemist is actually the arcane equivalent of the wildshape druid. I further suggest that the summoner is the arcane equivalent of the summoning, caster druid.

Now, this still leaves a lot of the arcane spells which synergize with melee out, and the person who wants an evoking meleer out in the cold. But ignoring the non-Vancian arcane meleeist that exist just because they do not cast spells exactly like a wizard with the spell list you want is perhaps a touch unfair. I personally do not disagree that a melee equivalent of the AA PRC would be great, that can use somatic weaponry, that gets an action discount (from swift to free) on the arcane armor feats, and that can cast some selection of spells through a weapon, like the AA PRC can cast spells through an arrow, and can make their weaponry and maybe their armor do magical things as they level up. Strip out however many caster levels as necessary from a design perspective, but this might plug the gap the way the AA does for archer mages.

You are right, I should not have left the alchemist out. For me it is very wrong flavor wise, particularly because it doesnt actually cast spells, but it definately deserves to be in the category. The fact that it cannot actually cast spells, and the emphasis on potions(and infusions) and bombs sets it squarely in the mad scientist category for me. My apologies for leaving it out though. But I believe that a fighter/arcane caster should be able to actually cast arcane spells, including on others.

And I dont think another PRC will plug the hole. Prestige classes are inherantly flawed in covering this concept because they do not accomplish anything untill mid to upper levels. I firmly believe a base class is required to fit the kinds of games most people play.


The real issues seem to be spell selection and synergy.

Ranger and paladin, only giving up 3 caster levels, come closest to a viable option(using divine casting to get around ASF), but a ranger's spell selection is too limited (Overly themed - needs magic weapon and greater for a start and more non-themed general combat use spells), and paladins spell list is better, but they take a load of restrictions because of everything else they get.

Bards suffer the same overly themed spell list as rangers, but are less less likely candidates for getting much in the way of general combat spells for thematic reasons.

Somatic weaponry to cast while wielding with both hands, and a way to negate ASF in at least light armor as a free (not swift) action at most are really the best examples for synergy.

The ability to channel spells through their weapon would also be an excellent synergy, though I would consider limiting it to touch spells and stack the spell effect with weapon damage.

note: I've limited myself to the core classes as we have seen the finalized versions of them and the APG classes may differ from playtest in the final.


A Man In Black wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Full BAB and 2/3rds casting is to much. If ya want full BAB you should be limited to a half caster. If ya want 2/3rd caster your stuck with medium BAB
No, it's not. Full BAB and full casting wouldn't be too much, and half BAB and limited casting could work just fine. The base stats are the least important part of the class; class features and the spell list (if any) are much more important.

Yeah, pretty much.

To the statement of "Full BAB and 2/3rds casting is too much," I once again feel the need to present the Duskblade. Full BAB? Check. Partial casting? Check. Balanced? Very.


meatrace wrote:
One thing to make this more synergistic is to make a WHOLE bunch of spells that work on swift actions.

I agree.

What is wanted as a class is something like the bard but with more combat oriented abilities and spell-list that reflects a combat option. The psychic warrior is a good model to base on, as it fulfils the role of 'magic enhanced fighter' rather well.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Full BAB and 2/3rds casting is to much. If ya want full BAB you should be limited to a half caster. If ya want 2/3rd caster your stuck with medium BAB
No, it's not. Full BAB and full casting wouldn't be too much, and half BAB and limited casting could work just fine. The base stats are the least important part of the class; class features and the spell list (if any) are much more important.

Yeah, pretty much.

To the statement of "Full BAB and 2/3rds casting is too much," I once again feel the need to present the Duskblade. Full BAB? Check. Partial casting? Check. Balanced? Very.

Uh-oh, you brought up their bugaboo. Now they're going to tell you how insanely overpowered the Duskblade was :O.

But yeah, a bard has 3/4 BAB, 2/3 casting, 6+ skills, and a ton of other things. Druids/Clerics get 3/4 BAB, FULL casting, and a TON of other nifty things. If you're saying that Full BAB/2/3 casting is overpowered, but 3/4 BAB/FULL caster is not, then that's as much as saying that BAB is more powerful than spellcasting. I think most people would disagree.

Dark Archive

In my experience, Duskblades were deadly dull. They were whiz-bang, for a very brief time, and then, wad shot, rolled over and started snoring.

I'd rather play something with A) staying power and B) options.


Although Clerics and Druids get a full spell list/casting the spells on those lists have synergy with those classes and are a world away from those found on the arcane spell list.

They all have a significant lack of "oomph" that the arcane list has. No large area effect spells which cause damage for example.

If you gave the Cleric the arcane spell list to pick from you would have a horrible uber class which would outshine all, except Paladins :)


I just want to point out that claiming clerics have 3/4ths BAB is slightly off. They're at all times one small spell away from full BAB.

That's why clerics in 3.5 base were so powerful. With one spell they had fighter BAB. With a second spell they got a major boost to their combat stats and gained reach. Two spells and they were better then fighters.

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:

In my experience, Duskblades were deadly dull. They were whiz-bang, for a very brief time, and then, wad shot, rolled over and started snoring.

I'd rather play something with A) staying power and B) options.

Interesting ... Set, would you mind going into more detail about this? I'm curious what you mean exactly.

Thanks!!


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I just want to point out that claiming clerics have 3/4ths BAB is slightly off. They're at all times one small spell away from full BAB.

That's why clerics in 3.5 base were so powerful. With one spell they had fighter BAB without sacrificing the ability to cast spells. With a second spell they got a major boost to their combat stats and gained reach. Two spells and they were better then fighters.

Fixed that for you. Arcane casters could get get full BAB with a single spell too, but had to sacrifice the ability to cast spells or use spell trigger/completion items (while under the spell's effect) to do it. Clerics gave up nothing when using their spell.

Dark Archive

Marc Radle 81 wrote:
Interesting ... Set, would you mind going into more detail about this? I'm curious what you mean exactly.

The Duskblade I played in Xendrik Expeditions, to keep up with the sort of numbers the Barbarian was putting out, ended up using Arcane Strike to burn up his spell slots, combined with Blade of Blood to enhance his damage. As a result, he was drained within the first few rounds of combat, and was 'the weak sister' for the rest of the adventure. (Granted, the Barbarian had the same problem, having blown his Rage in the first combat, and not having enough Feats for Extra Rage yet, having taken Power Attack and Cleave, but between his superior strength and those feats, he still kept ahead.)

Now, I acknowledge that this play-experience was entirely my own fault. The character was hardly optimal (shoulda been using a greatsword, like the Barbarian, for instance). I could have held back and saved some stuff for later in the day, and not 'mashed the buttons as soon as they came up' (in video-game speak), but the first combat was pretty rough, and it felt necessary at the time.

The Duskblade ended up feeling like a 'nova' class. Great guns a-blazin' and then, klunk, nothing left in the tank.


Spacelard wrote:

Although Clerics and Druids get a full spell list/casting the spells on those lists have synergy with those classes and are a world away from those found on the arcane spell list.

They all have a significant lack of "oomph" that the arcane list has. No large area effect spells which cause damage for example.

If you gave the Cleric the arcane spell list to pick from you would have a horrible uber class which would outshine all, except Paladins :)

And here is the crux of your problem. There is no "divine list" and "arcane list" there are specific lists for specific classes. Druid is an extremely powerful class, and yes it does get AoE especially from splatbooks. That's not the point. If we make a class that is Full BAB 2/3 caster we can nail down what would be overpowered in spell combinations and disallow that. You're imagining that maybe this class has the entire wiz/sor spell list, it would not.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Set wrote:

In my experience, Duskblades were deadly dull. They were whiz-bang, for a very brief time, and then, wad shot, rolled over and started snoring.

I'd rather play something with A) staying power and B) options.

My Pathfinderized Duskblade made it only as far as level 4 before that campaign went on hiatus, so I can only address the lower levels.

I think he's complaining that once a Duskblade has expended his spells, his effectiveness drops dramatically. It's not AS bad as it was because of the changes to Arcane Strike (you DID take Arcane Strike, didn't you ?); it can work all the time rather than consuming spells but that also means you can't nova with it. The only channelable cantrip they have is "Touch of Fatigue" (and not all conversions of Duskblade to Pathfinder let Arcane Attunement and Cantrips be unlimited.)

He's also complaining about lack of options; this could be the VERY limited spell list and the fact that they only add a SINGLE spell known at each level. Or he might be complaining about the two skill points per level limiting the skills a Duskblade will pick up for out of combat use.

My experience was that they have an AC issue at levels just before they'd gain the ability to move up in armor while still avoiding ASF. At level 4, my duskblade's AC was a pitiful 16. Yes, I could have bought more dex during design, but I didn't want to sack STR or INT or CON.

Edit: Ninja'd by the poster


Set wrote:
Marc Radle 81 wrote:
Interesting ... Set, would you mind going into more detail about this? I'm curious what you mean exactly.

The Duskblade I played in Xendrik Expeditions, to keep up with the sort of numbers the Barbarian was putting out, ended up using Arcane Strike to burn up his spell slots, combined with Blade of Blood to enhance his damage. As a result, he was drained within the first few rounds of combat, and was 'the weak sister' for the rest of the adventure. (Granted, the Barbarian had the same problem, having blown his Rage in the first combat, and not having enough Feats for Extra Rage yet, having taken Power Attack and Cleave, but between his superior strength and those feats, he still kept ahead.)

Now, I acknowledge that this play-experience was entirely my own fault. The character was hardly optimal (shoulda been using a greatsword, like the Barbarian, for instance). I could have held back and saved some stuff for later in the day, and not 'mashed the buttons as soon as they came up' (in video-game speak), but the first combat was pretty rough, and it felt necessary at the time.

The Duskblade ended up feeling like a 'nova' class. Great guns a-blazin' and then, klunk, nothing left in the tank.

...Wait, you didn't have power attack or a two handed weapon?

Um.

I think I might've spotted your problem ;p

Power attack is a must for any martial character other then precision damage types. Incidentally, you can also get Knowledge Devotion for even better combat usage - with high int and all knowledges, it's perfect for a duskblade.

Out of curiosity, what feats did you have going in, and what spells did you typically use?


Set wrote:

The Duskblade I played in Xendrik Expeditions, to keep up with the sort of numbers the Barbarian was putting out, ended up using Arcane Strike to burn up his spell slots, combined with Blade of Blood to enhance his damage. As a result, he was drained within the first few rounds of combat, and was 'the weak sister' for the rest of the adventure. (Granted, the Barbarian had the same problem, having blown his Rage in the first combat, and not having enough Feats for Extra Rage yet, having taken Power Attack and Cleave, but between his superior strength and those feats, he still kept ahead.)

Now, I acknowledge that this play-experience was entirely my own fault. The character was hardly optimal (shoulda been using a greatsword, like the Barbarian, for instance). I could have held back and saved some stuff for later in the day, and not 'mashed the buttons as soon as they came up' (in video-game speak), but the first combat was pretty rough, and it felt necessary at the time.

The Duskblade ended up feeling like a 'nova' class. Great guns a-blazin' and then, klunk, nothing left in the tank.

Um, why not spend the first encounter or two polishing your sword, then step in to save the day once the barbarian is exhausted? A lot of classes have 'nova' potential, the art of using them is learning when not to use it.


I'm willing to bet 95% of people complaining about Eldritch Knights haven't played one.

A member of my group played one from 3-14, Fighter-2/Mage-5-/Eldritch Knight -7 no less and was highly effective at every level using Pathfinder Core only.

Too many people on these boards make assumptions based on mock games they play with themselves or simply rehash the same old arguments based off someone else's broken logic. Very few have actually experienced a campaign with the class they are trying to put down. If you can't make an effective Eldritch Knight, maybe it's not the RAW......maybe it's just you.....


I think that a point a bit overlooked in this thread is how you play a F/Mage type:

1) primary party arcane caster and support melee warrior?
2) primary party melee warrior and support arcane caster?
3) primary party melee warrior and primary party arcane caster?
4) something else?

As the rules go, options 1-3 seem unlikely and are going to produce a weaker character than pure classes. The key is to determine what option 4 is...

Back in the day of earlier editions, the idea was that a F/MU was:

1) extra daily spells for the party
2) an OK warrior, a bit behind the main party fighters, but not that much

(BTW, in OD&D and 1st ed, you could be an elf F/MU and wear magic armor, the no armor rule was implemented in 2nd ed)

The big difference in balance between 1st-2nd ed and 3 onwards was that character classes had diverse XP progressions and that multiclass began at lvl 1 for all classes (except for HPs, which were divided, you basically cashed in one extra level of attack bonus, spells and class features for each class taken). This made a 1st lvl F/MU as good as a 1st Lvl Ftr for melee in all but HPs and identical to a 1st lvl MU for casting. Also, as adventures went by, XP made the fighter progression faster than the MU progression, at least in low-mid level, that's why you find all this NPC and sample PC cards full of Fr3 4 / MU 3 and similar uneven levels.

The math tended to underscore an more or less ok fighter (with less resistance to damage) with spell power as an extra. That would be option 2) above.

This option is not present in post 3.0, as:

1) multiclass does not mean one extra lvl of power at lvl 1
2) armor restrictions are in full force

So, our model definitely has to change, we need to define how to play a mixed character and make it work in party dynamics without relying on earlier paradigms, which can only be fully emulated by unbalancing the rules.

Some ideas:

1) a F/MU is ideal for support (read "buff") spells, as many of them are not highly dependent on CL, both for himself and the party. A main arcane caster rarely has the need of melee boosting spells for herself (what wizard really casts Bull's Strength on himself?) and preparing those is a waste of spell slots which can be used for what a primary caster is good at: level-dependent damaging spells. This is not a 100% rule (each mage has his own way of playing), but having a secondary caster relieve the main one of memorizing Haste or Invisibility Sphere is a good asset.
(of course, a Bard does that just as well, but some people don't like bards, and certainly they are less flexible compared to a Wizard, who can prepare spells according to needs).

2) A F/MU is also a good support warrior. He cannot play as a tank, but probably can be very good at pairing at flanking with another melee type. Probably you need to optimize feats for mobility and speed and definitely avoid grappling. Some spells are just designed for that (Blink, Dimension Door) and in those circumstances you can stay free in the battle scene when other warriors get pinned (grappled, swallowed and those things).

Point 2) indicates that perhaps a Rogue-type would be more suited for this kind of model, and, to be honest, I find the Arcane Trickster a far better character choice than the EK. The only difference is the amount of melee rounds an EK can put up with, which are quite higher, and a better access to fighter feats.

All in all, the game does not have so bad options, I see a bit of a problem in the way that kind of character can be played in combat situations, it requires more elaborate strategies than pure melee or arcane types, and that's not fixed by rules.


Deyvantius wrote:

I'm willing to bet 95% of people complaining about Eldritch Knights haven't played one.

A member of my group played one from 3-14, Fighter-2/Mage-5-/Eldritch Knight -7 no less and was highly effective at every level using Pathfinder Core only.

Too many people on these boards make assumptions based on mock games they play with themselves or simply rehash the same old arguments based off someone else's broken logic. Very few have actually experienced a campaign with the class they are trying to put down. If you can't make an effective Eldritch Knight, maybe it's not the RAW......maybe it's just you.....

I have not played an eldrich knight, i have however seen several people try to play them. None of the characters have made it past level 10 out of frustration with the character.

Though I have never played one, having seen several attempted gives me enough insight to compare it to existing classes.


Deyvantius wrote:

I'm willing to bet 95% of people complaining about Eldritch Knights haven't played one.

A member of my group played one from 3-14, Fighter-2/Mage-5-/Eldritch Knight -7 no less and was highly effective at every level using Pathfinder Core only.

Too many people on these boards make assumptions based on mock games they play with themselves or simply rehash the same old arguments based off someone else's broken logic. Very few have actually experienced a campaign with the class they are trying to put down. If you can't make an effective Eldritch Knight, maybe it's not the RAW......maybe it's just you.....

Highlight is by me.

I have been thinking that but didn't want things to kick off. I have a player with a Warmage/Paladin dip which is a tough cookie.

Now not wanting to start anything but the OP wanted an opinion so here is mine. Take it or leave it.

I see several issues, there is a disagreement about what a Ftr/Mu can do, what its BAB should be, 3/4 or full caster, etc. So until that basic can be agreed on nothing will change.
The other issue is the arcane spell list. Do people want full list and full casting?

The Cleric and Druid have been brought up as a 3/4 caster with full spells so why can't there be an arcane equivalent?
Just slotting the Arcane list across wholesale will create a horrible unbalanced uber class.
Clerics don't get any blasty spells of worth. They don't even get Disrupt Undead! What damage dealing spells does a Cleric get? Inflict Wounds, a touch attack which does a maximum of d8+5 damage. Compare that to Magic Missile auto hit for 3d4+3 at 5th level but caps at 5d4+5. I could go on with what is the Divine equivalent to Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow, Haste, Fireball etc. The reason there isn't any is if there were the Cleric would be superclass.

In order to have a 3/4 arcane caster the spell list has to be unique to the Ftr/Mu and needs to be restricted to the type of spell otherwise it will be too much. Unless the game designers are prepared to develop such a list or us as players then the debate will neer get resolved.


Spacelard wrote:
Deyvantius wrote:

I'm willing to bet 95% of people complaining about Eldritch Knights haven't played one.

A member of my group played one from 3-14, Fighter-2/Mage-5-/Eldritch Knight -7 no less and was highly effective at every level using Pathfinder Core only.

Too many people on these boards make assumptions based on mock games they play with themselves or simply rehash the same old arguments based off someone else's broken logic. Very few have actually experienced a campaign with the class they are trying to put down. If you can't make an effective Eldritch Knight, maybe it's not the RAW......maybe it's just you.....

Highlight is by me.

I have been thinking that but didn't want things to kick off. I have a player with a Warmage/Paladin dip which is a tough cookie.

Now not wanting to start anything but the OP wanted an opinion so here is mine. Take it or leave it.

I see several issues, there is a disagreement about what a Ftr/Mu can do, what its BAB should be, 3/4 or full caster, etc. So until that basic can be agreed on nothing will change.
The other issue is the arcane spell list. Do people want full list and full casting?

The Cleric and Druid have been brought up as a 3/4 caster with full spells so why can't there be an arcane equivalent?
Just slotting the Arcane list across wholesale will create a horrible unbalanced uber class.
Clerics don't get any blasty spells of worth. They don't even get Disrupt Undead! What damage dealing spells does a Cleric get? Inflict Wounds, a touch attack which does a maximum of d8+5 damage. Compare that to Magic Missile auto hit for 3d4+3 at 5th level but caps at 5d4+5. I could go on with what is the Divine equivalent to Scorching Ray, Acid Arrow, Haste, Fireball etc. The reason there isn't any is if there were the Cleric would be superclass.

In order to have a 3/4 arcane caster the spell list has to be unique to the Ftr/Mu and needs to be restricted to the type of spell otherwise it will be too much. Unless the game...

I think part of the problem is that players have different ideas of what they want in the spell list, so there will never be any agreement on what a F/M should have.

I would like to see a class that gets most of the combat spells and way to integrate them into the fighting better. Many people seem to agree with this sentament. Here is a spell list I would like to see with Bard casting.

spells I would like:
1st lvl spells
Mage Armor
True Strike
Burning Hands
Shocking Grasp
Magic Missile
Chill Touch
Ray of Enfeblement
Enlarge Person
Expeditious Retreat
Jump
Magic Weapon

2nd lvl spells
Protection From Arrows
Resist Energy
Acid Arrow
Web
See Invisibility
Flaming Sphere
Gust of Wind
Scorching Ray
Blurr
Invisibility
Mirror Image
False Life
+4 stat spells
Darkvision
Spider Climb

3rd lvl spells
Dispel Magic
Protection from Energy
Stinking Cloud
Heroism
Hold Person
Rage
Fireball
Lightning Bolt
Displacement
Ray of Exhaustion
Vampiric Touch
Beast Shape 1
Blink
Fly
Haste
Keen Edge
Greater Magic Weapon

4th lvl spells
Lesser Globe of Invulnerablity
Stoneskin
Dimension Door
Crushing Despair
Fire Shield
Ice Storm
Greater Invisibility
Bestow Curse
Enervation
Fear
Beast Shape 2
Elemental Body 1
Enlarge Person Mass

5th lvl spells
Dismissal
Cloudkill
Teleport
Hold Monster
Cone of Cold
Waves of Fatigue
Beast Shape 3
Elemental Body 2
Polymorph

6th lvl spells
Antimagic Field
Dispel Magic, Greater
Globe of Invulnerability
Acid Fog
True Seeing
Heroism, Greater
Chain Lightning
Contingency
Feezing Sphere
Mislead
Circle of Death
Mass +4 spells
Beast Shape 4
Disintegrate
Elemental Body 3
Form of the Dragon 1
Transformation


People have ab aversion to using the Bard as a fighter/mage, and I wonder why. To find out, which of the following options do you believe will turn the Bard into a fighter/mage?

  • Bard spells, but a prepared caster instead of spont.
  • Bard progression, but full arcane spell list.
  • Bard progression, but prep caster AND full arcane spell list.
  • Removal of Facinate and Suggestion from bardic music and replaced with faster Inspire progression.
  • Removal of all bardic music and replaced with other class abilities.
  • Replace bardic knowledge abilities with fighter armor and weapon abilities.
  • Reduce skills.

I ask because I actually see nothing that prevents using the Bard, just re-flavoring, except the spell list. It seems that better bard spells, like those from SpellCompendium, would create a decent fighter/mage. But I may not understand why the Bard is not adequate, or what they are missing that would make them adequate.

This also helps frame the debate as "one model can work" vs "another model must be used".


Caineach wrote:

I think part of the problem is that players have different ideas of what they want in the spell list, so there will never be any agreement on what a F/M should have.

I would like to see a class that gets most of the combat spells and way to integrate them into the fighting better. Many people seem to agree with this sentament. Here is a spell list I would like to see with Bard casting.
[/b]

So is this list for a 3/4 BAB, Bard progression for spells?

The problem I have is that all the spells on your list are bread and butter Wizard spells, the cream of the crop. If Summon Monster was in there it would be truly uber. Coupled with armor casting...

Tejon's Iron Mage is close...

Perhaps limiting schools to Divination, Transmutation and Enchantment?

I really don't think a Ftr/Mu class should have Evocation school access. A Ftr/Mu should be using a weapon to cause damge with arcane spells to boost his fighting ability not be a blaster.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:

People have ab aversion to using the Bard as a fighter/mage, and I wonder why. To find out, which of the following options do you believe will turn the Bard into a fighter/mage?

  • Bard progression, but full arcane spell list doesnt need to be full list, just an refocusing of it on tran/evoc/necro/abj instead of illusion and enchantment
  • Removal of all bardic music and replaced with other class abilities.yes please
  • Replace bardic knowledge abilities with fighter armor and weapon abilities.good as well
  • Reduce skills.preferably in exchange for better armor and weapon proficiencies

Quote:


I ask because I actually see nothing that prevents using the Bard, just re-flavoring, except the spell list. It seems that better bard spells, like those from SpellCompendium, would create a decent fighter/mage. But I may not understand why the Bard is not adequate, or what they are missing that would make them adequate.

This also helps frame the debate as "one model can work" vs "another model must be used".

It definately needs reflavoring, but it also needs re-focusing. A bard is a jack of ALL trades, we are looking for a jack of 2. Like i listed above i'd rather see the whole music set go, the spell list rearranged, and it be given better weapon and armor proficiencies. The bard class ability cup is chock full of things that dont fit the idea of a fighter mage.


Spacelard wrote:
Caineach wrote:

I think part of the problem is that players have different ideas of what they want in the spell list, so there will never be any agreement on what a F/M should have.

I would like to see a class that gets most of the combat spells and way to integrate them into the fighting better. Many people seem to agree with this sentament. Here is a spell list I would like to see with Bard casting.
[/b]

So is this list for a 3/4 BAB, Bard progression for spells?

The problem I have is that all the spells on your list are bread and butter Wizard spells, the cream of the crop. If Summon Monster was in there it would be truly uber. Coupled with armor casting...

Tejon's Iron Mage is close...

Perhaps limiting schools to Divination, Transmutation and Enchantment?

I really don't think a Ftr/Mu class should have Evocation school access. A Ftr/Mu should be using a weapon to cause damge with arcane spells to boost his fighting ability not be a blaster.

Why on earth do you think it needs enchantment? That is a controlling power not a fighting one? Some divination sure, but a focus? I dont think so. Transmutation ofcourse it contains most of the buffs, but Necromancy, Abjuration and Evocation are important as well (take a look at Tejon's iron mage for exmaple).

Necromancy - debuffs to make it easier to fight an opponent.
Abjuration - to protect yourself with defensive spells
Evocation - particularly if you can channel spells through attacks like a duskblade this is REALLY an important school. But alot of people have an image of combining blast with blade as what belongs in a fighter/mage.


Kolokotroni wrote:
  • Bard progression, but full arcane spell list doesnt need to be full list, just an refocusing of it on tran/evoc/necro/abj instead of illusion and enchantment
  • Removal of all bardic music and replaced with other class abilities.yes please
  • Replace bardic knowledge abilities with fighter armor and weapon abilities.good as well
  • Reduce skills.preferably in exchange for better armor and weapon proficiencies

Ok, so you want class abilities that ONLY focus on combat and casting. Nothing more.

So a 3/4 BAB, Bard caster with access to your chosen 3 schools of arcane magic, simple and martial weapon proficiency, all armor proficiency and shields except tower shield.

For class abilities, what would you like to see? Swift casting like the Duskblade? Spell channeling like the Spellsword? Armored casting like the Warmage?

Grand Lodge

Deyvantius wrote:

I'm willing to bet 95% of people complaining about Eldritch Knights haven't played one.

A member of my group played one from 3-14, Fighter-2/Mage-5-/Eldritch Knight -7 no less and was highly effective at every level using Pathfinder Core only.

Too many people on these boards make assumptions based on mock games they play with themselves or simply rehash the same old arguments based off someone else's broken logic. Very few have actually experienced a campaign with the class they are trying to put down. If you can't make an effective Eldritch Knight, maybe it's not the RAW......maybe it's just you.....

Well considering I play them all the time and I am currently playing one in a pure RAW game, I can tell you that if your not having issues, your not playing by RAW. No arcane binding weapon for you unless you use a single handed weapon (and NOTHING else) for example. If you use a sword and shield or two weapons, well, you can´t even fight one round and cast the next without drawing an AoO and using up even MORE actions...because not only should you not have a swift, but you shouldn´t have a move either.


I have to agree with spacelord that spell list is damned good, the best ones. I also disagree with giving a F/M class a fighters armor or weapon training. You should never make a class a no brainier

I do agree it should be built on the bard frame, maybe some self buffs in place of bardic music for starters or some such. Not sure But I am of the mind 3/4th bab and bard casting is just right


Kolokotroni wrote:


Why on earth do you think it needs enchantment? That is a controlling power not a fighting one? Some divination sure, but a focus? I dont think so. Transmutation ofcourse it contains most of the buffs, but Necromancy, Abjuration and Evocation are important as well (take a look at Tejon's iron mage for exmaple).

Necromancy - debuffs to make it easier to fight an opponent.
Abjuration - to protect yourself with defensive spells
Evocation - particularly if you can channel spells through attacks like a duskblade this is REALLY an important school. But alot of people have an image of combining blast with blade as what belongs in a fighter/mage.

Not thinking there properly :)

Abjuration sorry not Enchantment...
My fault in trying to multitask. But I still stand by the statment that Evocation shouldn't be there.

EDIT
I'm very aware of Tejon's Iron Mage. I always mention it when Gish-ues take place. Its best compromise I have seen.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
  • Bard progression, but full arcane spell list doesnt need to be full list, just an refocusing of it on tran/evoc/necro/abj instead of illusion and enchantment
  • Removal of all bardic music and replaced with other class abilities.yes please
  • Replace bardic knowledge abilities with fighter armor and weapon abilities.good as well
  • Reduce skills.preferably in exchange for better armor and weapon proficiencies

Ok, so you want class abilities that ONLY focus on combat and casting. Nothing more.

So a 3/4 BAB, Bard caster with access to your chosen 3 schools of arcane magic, simple and martial weapon proficiency, all armor proficiency and shields except tower shield.

For class abilities, what would you like to see? Swift casting like the Duskblade? Spell channeling like the Spellsword? Armored casting like the Warmage?

Essentially yes, I think the divided focus of the Bard weakens it overall when compared to other classes in every arena but buffing.

All sheilds is not neccessary, nor is neccasirly heavy armor, that would be a judgement call based on the class as a whole.

Those are all examples of class abilities I like, but they are not all requirements. My point is there should be a focus on class abilities that combine magic and fighting. Armored casting lets you wear armor to keep up your AC, casting spells through a weapon attack is a great example of how to combine magic and fighting, but that isnt all. The Rivenspell ability from the Genius guide Archon is another. If paizo were to create this, I would like to think they'd come up with something new, or at least a little different. Like new abilities for the APG classes, which offer something different from the other classes.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
  • Bard progression, but full arcane spell list doesnt need to be full list, just an refocusing of it on tran/evoc/necro/abj instead of illusion and enchantment
  • Removal of all bardic music and replaced with other class abilities.yes please
  • Replace bardic knowledge abilities with fighter armor and weapon abilities.good as well
  • Reduce skills.preferably in exchange for better armor and weapon proficiencies

Ok, so you want class abilities that ONLY focus on combat and casting. Nothing more.

So a 3/4 BAB, Bard caster with access to your chosen 3 schools of arcane magic, simple and martial weapon proficiency, all armor proficiency and shields except tower shield.

For class abilities, what would you like to see? Swift casting like the Duskblade? Spell channeling like the Spellsword? Armored casting like the Warmage?

Essentially yes, I think the divided focus of the Bard weakens it overall when compared to other classes in every arena but buffing.

All sheilds is not neccessary, nor is neccasirly heavy armor, that would be a judgement call based on the class as a whole.

Those are all examples of class abilities I like, but they are not all requirements. My point is there should be a focus on class abilities that combine magic and fighting. Armored casting lets you wear armor to keep up your AC, casting spells through a weapon attack is a great example of how to combine magic and fighting, but that isnt all. The Rivenspell ability from the Genius guide Archon is another. If paizo were to create this, I would like to think they'd come up with something new, or at least a little different. Like new abilities for the APG classes, which offer something different from the other classes.

Agreed shields aren't necessary but I would bet all the gold in Glorian at the first chance a mithril buckler will be on the shopping list :)


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I have to agree with spacelord that spell list is damned good, the best ones. I also disagree with giving a F/M class a fighters armor or weapon training. You should never make a class a no brainier

I do agree it should be built on the bard frame, maybe some self buffs in place of bardic music for starters or some such. Not sure But I am of the mind 3/4th bab and bard casting is just right

I would agree about the fighter abilties, i miss read that, specific abilities of armor and weapon training are not neccessary, abilities that work with armor and weapons are. The whole swift action juggling of the Eldritch Knight (arcane strike, arcane armor training and the capstone) is something that should be avoided. This kind of class should have abilities that related to armor and weapon based combat, if not specifically armor and weapon training.

Spacelard wrote:


Not thinking there properly :)
Abjuration sorry not Enchantment...
My fault in trying to multitask. But I still stand by the statment that Evocation shouldn't be there.

Is there a reason you exclude necromancy as well? Do you think things like vampiric touch, or debuffs like enervation, or ghoul touch dont have a place with a fighter mage?

As for evocation. Why do you think it doesnt have a place? Do you think a fireball is too flashy? Do you think the Duskblade (power level aside) was a poor attempt at a fighter mage? Personally sword strikes exploding into firey blasts is a big part of what I picture when I think of a fighter mage.


@Kolokotroni

No problem with Necromancy either.
As for Evocation, for me, a Ftr/Mu should use his spells to augment his combat abilities with his weapons.
Its my hang up :)
As I have said a Ftr/Mu means different things to different people I just don't see Evocation as part of a Ftr/Mu and you do. We disagree on this point, it isn't a problem for me :)


Spacelard wrote:

@Kolokotroni

No problem with Necromancy either.
As for Evocation, for me, a Ftr/Mu should use his spells to augment his combat abilities with his weapons.
Its my hang up :)
As I have said a Ftr/Mu means different things to different people I just don't see Evocation as part of a Ftr/Mu and you do. We disagree on this point, it isn't a problem for me :)

Indeed there are lots of visions for it, I am just trying to understand yours. So my question is, would you have a problem if the class had evocation spells on it's list? Particularly if its standard bard progression, you could avoid them all together by not choosing them as spells known if its just a flavor and not a balance issue. Or is evocation a deal breaker for you?


Kolokotroni wrote:
Spacelard wrote:

@Kolokotroni

No problem with Necromancy either.
As for Evocation, for me, a Ftr/Mu should use his spells to augment his combat abilities with his weapons.
Its my hang up :)
As I have said a Ftr/Mu means different things to different people I just don't see Evocation as part of a Ftr/Mu and you do. We disagree on this point, it isn't a problem for me :)

Indeed there are lots of visions for it, I am just trying to understand yours. So my question is, would you have a problem if the class had evocation spells on it's list? Particularly if its standard bard progression, you could avoid them all together by not choosing them as spells known if its just a flavor and not a balance issue. Or is evocation a deal breaker for you?

A bit of both really.

And I apologise now for a bit of old school mentality!
For me Evocation spells are there for the Wizard to cause damage. That is/was their schtick. For the Wizard to do damage he unleashed his Fireball Of Death (that was typed in a James Mason voice) or poke at it with his dagger or lobbed three darts a round. In melee he is feeble and the Evocation school was the balance for that.

A Ftr/Mu has another option to do damage as his melee abilities, hit points, AC are going to be better by default. He has otherways to do the damage other than blasting.

The standard arcane Evocation spells have been designed with a Wizard causing damage and all the associated drawbacks of being a Wizard in mind.

What would be the ideal? An Evocation school spell list designed with a Ftr/Mu class in mind rather than copy/paste the standard list across.
A quick off-the-top-of-my-head example
Sword Bolt: Imbues a weapon with arcane power which allows a small bolt of electricity leap from the tip to a single opponent dealing d6 damage per level or the charge can be discharged a damage die at a time during contact in melee.

I see a Ftr/Mu as a melee character that casts spells not a spell caster that melees.

I hope that makes sense.


Ok so if the standard Fighter-2/Mage-5/Eldritch Knight-x or Fighter-1/Mage-5/Eldritch Knight-x sucks please tell me when it goes wrong?

I'm really not into building classes on boards becase it always come off as being cheezey to me and gives no real indication of in game usability but I'll try for arguments sake.

15 point buy (which I have never played with in my life)
Human: Fighter-2, Mage-1
Dex: 13
Str: 14
Con: 14
Int: 14
Wis: 10
Cha: 7

Use +2 anywhere you want (STR, CON, INT- I suggest STR or Con because as an edlritch knight I wouldn't focus on spells relying on high SR or Saves resistance)
Traits: Magical Knack, Etc.

Feats: Dodge, Toughness, Improved Iniative; Power attack, Arcane Armor Prof (through Magical Knack +2 Caster LVL, your rules interpretation may vary)

*Spells to use as you advance as a mage
1)Shield and True Strike
2) Bull's Str and Mirror Image
3) You know how to play this game, do it yourself from here....

Now please tell me why this guy sucks from here on out? How is he any less viable than anyone else as a secondary tank or arcane caster. In what way does he gimp the rest of the party? Having played this build myself and seen it in action the 10% arcane failure chance from mithril chain is nothing to worry about and eventually you can wear Mithril Plate with Arcane Armor Mastery and only 5% chance of failure.

now can you kick the fighter's ass in melee..NOPE. Can you outcast the wizard....NOPE. are you equal to or better than the bard as an Eldritch Knight,,,Hell yeah. do you mix swordplay and spells yep. Are you viable, yep.


meatrace wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
meatrace wrote:


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.

WHO'S idea of balance is wonky?


Spacelard wrote:
Caineach wrote:

I think part of the problem is that players have different ideas of what they want in the spell list, so there will never be any agreement on what a F/M should have.

I would like to see a class that gets most of the combat spells and way to integrate them into the fighting better. Many people seem to agree with this sentament. Here is a spell list I would like to see with Bard casting.
[/b]

So is this list for a 3/4 BAB, Bard progression for spells?

The problem I have is that all the spells on your list are bread and butter Wizard spells, the cream of the crop. If Summon Monster was in there it would be truly uber. Coupled with armor casting...

Tejon's Iron Mage is close...

Perhaps limiting schools to Divination, Transmutation and Enchantment?

I really don't think a Ftr/Mu class should have Evocation school access. A Ftr/Mu should be using a weapon to cause damge with arcane spells to boost his fighting ability not be a blaster.

I made this list very quickly, just looking down the wizards list.

It would be for bard progression and spells known. And no, I do not think it is too good. I left off most of the spells I actually consider good on the mage list. The bread and butter of the wizard is left behind. Its got almost no battlefield control spells, very little enchantment/charm abilities, and loses good illusions. It has buffs, debuffs, dirrect damage, and a couple necessary staples like dispell magic. Its also getting every spell at the same level as a pure caster, unlike a bard.


Deyvantius wrote:

Ok so if the standard Fighter-2/Mage-5/Eldritch Knight-x or Fighter-1/Mage-5/Eldritch Knight-x sucks please tell me when it goes wrong?

...

Deyvantius, most people don't really have a problem wiht Fighter-2 Mage-5 Eldrich Knight X. Once you get into EK, the class is fine. The problem is the first 7 lvls when you are a mage who loses a few levels and can't be the class you want yet.


Spacelard wrote:

A bit of both really.

And I apologise now for a bit of old school mentality!
For me Evocation spells are there for the Wizard to cause damage. That is/was their schtick. For the Wizard to do damage he unleashed his Fireball Of Death (that was typed in a James Mason voice) or poke at it with his dagger or lobbed three darts a round. In melee he is feeble and the Evocation school was the balance for that.

A Ftr/Mu has another option to do damage as his melee abilities, hit points, AC are going to be better by default. He has otherways to do the damage other than blasting.

The standard arcane Evocation spells have been designed with a Wizard causing damage and all the associated drawbacks of being a Wizard in mind.

What would be the ideal? An Evocation school spell list designed with a Ftr/Mu class in mind rather than copy/paste the standard list across.
A quick off-the-top-of-my-head example
Sword Bolt: Imbues a weapon with arcane power which allows a small bolt of electricity leap from the tip to a single opponent dealing d6 damage per level or the charge can be discharged a damage die at a time during contact in melee.

I see a Ftr/Mu as a melee character that casts spells not a spell caster that melees.

I hope that makes sense.

Ok so here is something I had considered when i designed my own fighter mage class. What if all spells that are not a range of personal, and not delivered by a direct touch attack, HAVE to be cast through a weapon (assuming there is some class ability to do that) and all area spells only affect the target struck by the weapon. Kind of shoehoring things like fireball and cone of cold into the 'sword bolt' list, without re-writing the arcane spell list?

Grand Lodge

Some issue with that build...even if you dumped every level up point into int, you would just BARELY make it to cast 9th level spells at 20 unless that +2 goes into int. Which means at some points you won´t be able to cast your highest level spells. If your fi2/wi8/ek10, your caster oriented. Int of 14 just won´t cut it. As a melee, str of 14 just doesn´t cut it...nor does 14 con when you have 8 level of the lowest HP in the game. You have to pick, fighty or casty. The EK build is casty...there currently is no way in core to make a fighty melee fi/MU unless you really try and squish the bard into that role. Not to mention issues with bonding weapons and having your hands full which your also failing to address. By RAW, it sucks...you can´t even do a basic thing like fight one round and cast the next without either losing a spell level to still spell (which really doesn´t help at low levels) or losing 2 move actions...1 with quickdraw...with the quickdraw or not, you still draw an AoO. Hell with a bonded weapon you generally end up having issues with even JUST casting a spell by RAW. So don´t give me that it´s fine by RAW...because I´m playing one...VERY strictly by RAW...and it sucks beyond what I thought was possible.


Caineach wrote:


Deyvantius, most people don't really have a problem wiht Fighter-2 Mage-5 Eldrich Knight X. Once you get into EK, the class is fine. The problem is the first 7 lvls when you are a mage who loses a few levels and can't be the class you want yet.

Fair enough.


Kolokotroni wrote:


Ok so here is something I had considered when i designed my own fighter mage class. What if all spells that are not a range of personal, and not delivered by a direct touch attack, HAVE to be cast through a weapon (assuming there is some class ability to do that) and all area spells only affect the target struck by the weapon. Kind of shoehoring things like fireball and cone of cold into the 'sword bolt' list, without re-writing the arcane spell list?

This destroys something I find very iconic in the fighter mage. Bashing someone over the head with a sword and then switching it up and firing a fireball at the guys about to enter the fight. I would not play the class if it lost the ability to blast, and I think its an integral part of the class.

51 to 100 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Gaming Kinks - Gishes / Magic-Users Crossed With Warriors are Awesome or Untenable. Discuss All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.