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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
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.

Was just some food for thought, I agree with you for the most part, I just want to get an idea of what spacelard wants to see.


Kolokotroni wrote:
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?

That would be more like it.

What you have is a Ftr/Mu rather than a Mu/Ftr.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Spacelard wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
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?

That would be more like it.

What you have is a Ftr/Mu rather than a Mu/Ftr.

Hmmm, i think we need to devide the two into FIGHTER/mage and fighter?MAGE camps no?

I think this could be done either by 2 classes or by something like bloodlines/specialities.

First one, boost combat ability significantly, more restricted spell list and primarily casts offensive spells through their weapon.
Second - smaller focus on combat, with a less restricted spell list and normal casting style.

I would go as far as to think maybe make the first one a full BAB 4 levels of casting (or maybe 6 with a very restricted spell list)

and the other 3/4 bab with bard casting and a more open spell list.


Cold Napalm wrote:
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.

Stat boost item. All you need is a 19 INT and you are casting all spells. +6 gets you to 20.


Cold Napalm wrote:
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.

It's hard to do MAD characters on a 15 point build. I wouldn't try EK on it - or a Monk, for that matter. 20 points is pretty much minimum IMO. Mind you, I hate having <10 scores in anything.


Just as a point of reference, there is a full divine caster/full BAB option available.

Holy Warrior cleric from the PFCS. Drop domain abilities and domain spells for d10 HD and full BAB progression. You still get all your normal channeling and spells.

The problem with it as a front line fighter is that you have 4 primary stats, Str, Wis, Chr, Con. Trying to keep these all at decent levels is a real juggling act. If I went archer I would swap con for dex and lower the priority of strength, but I would still have 4 stats to juggle.

I had to blow a feat to pick up heavy armor profiency because my dex is an 11. Even being human, my feats are stretched very thin. Selective Channeling to exclude enemies from my healing along with Power Attack, Heavy armor, Weapon focus for combat, and I am done. An actual fighter would get the HAP for free, and have twice as many feats as me. Along with weapon groups and armor profiency.

On top of the stats issue, I have no synergy. In any given round, I can charge, full attack, or cast a spell/channel and move. If I get 3 rounds to buff, I can leave anyone else in the dust on damage, but every round I spend buffing is a round where everyone else is dealing damage. Eventually, I am going to have to take quickened spell and/or see if my DM will let me use the Divine metamagic feat, but that will only stretch my feats even thinner.


Cold Napalm wrote:
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.

Please stop ranting against things you know to be false.

A. Even a fully casting EK does not need a high int if they are buffing or casting spells with no save. Int is only needed if you are going for high DCs. A starting int of 14, with 1 point put in it leveling, and a +4 item will get you up to 19 to get those 9th lvl spells.
B. 14 Con is more than enough for them. Sure, they get many lvls at low HD. But by lvl 10 they average the same as a medium hit die, and end with above a medium. Rogues don't need more than 14 con to be in the melee, and neither does the EK.
C. The +2 really needs to be put in Str, but a 16 str will be fine for a front line character before buffs. Sure its not as good as most fighter's 18s, but being 1 point off is not that critical.
D. You could not use your weapon as your bonded item and not have any problems casting. It was clarified that you can switch your weapon to a hand with a light shield as a free action that does not provoke and switch back in the same round. Therefore, you are just limitted to no heavy or tower shields. While I do think it is dumb that you can't use your weapon as a bonded item effectively, there are many ways arround this. Edit:link You can even use the free hand on a light shield to cast.
E. If you take the feats to cast in armor, you don't need still spell unless you want to quicken. Then you suffer standard ACP.

The damage output of an EK is not significantly off other classes unbuffed, and they get some of the best buffs in the game. It is a perfectly viable class.


Cold Napalm wrote:
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.

AT any level above 10 you will have a +2 Int at the very least so INt is not that important. And you can take a 5 foot step to cast, so I don't know what you are talking about. EK can cast mirror image and gain a 50% miss chance, basically giving him extra hps.

14Con and toughness can give some big hps, no one said you were going to be the tank. Rangers seemed to make it ok in 3.5 and rogues get similar hps when balanced with the 1D10 of the fighter and EK lvls./

Your spells are more powerful than the Bard and you can fight better.

Stop trying to destroy and try and build man.


@Kolokotroni

I think it would be a step in the right direction.
There are two types of character here, a Ftr/Mu and a Mu/Ftr for sure and your suggestions are a good starting point.

::Double take::
Agreement on a gishy thread!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

YOu guys gotta realize that BAB is the caster level of melee combat. Handing out BAB should be as precious as getting caster levels.

That's why you're not getting a true full BAB Gish class.

The problem with this whole argument is that F/MU's from AD&D are not a good comparison to current classes. Fighters there had TONS more exclusivity in stats, but did NOT have the feats/class features that current Fighters had. A F/MU could lag a level or two back from a fighter, and gave up NOTHING. A level 4/5 f/mu was very much able to equal a f/6...he might be a pt behind on BAB, but that was it...and he had 5 levels of casting to give himself an edge. A f/mu was in just about every way superior to a fighter of equal xp. Remember that for the first two levels, xp reqs basically doubled. A dual-classer would never be more then a level behind a single classer until after level 9-11, and would have ALL the benefits of the other class, to boot! Multi-classers suffered only for hit points...they benefited from better saves, better HP if primary casters, armor, weapons...the whole 9 yards. And 1 level behind, with tons of spellcasting ability. It wasn't even close.

IN AD@D, at the same xp level, you had a f/7, MU/9, and a f/MU 6/8.

Vs f/7 - the F/MU is 1 BAB behind, 1 at vs 3/2 (fixed next fighter level), probably not specialized, and has probably 5-10 less hit points from averaging hit points...offset by the fact he has more MU hit Dice!! Oh, and he's an 8th level caster...can you say Fire Shield? And his saves vs magical effects are +2-4 better then the fighter.

vs MU/9 - the F/MU is +4 BAB, gets to wear armor and use real weapons, ONE caster level behind, +2 hp/fighter level ahead (and has access to higher con bonuses), gets to roll for % str and use Str buffing gear (Gauntlets/girdles were fighter exclusives), in one level gets multiple attacks.

Keep in mind that that AC for most monsters never got below 23 or so back then. The f/mu 7/11 is just TONS better then a pure mu/12. Then simply stop putting xp into fighter levels and advance along.

It took less xp to get a fighter to 9 then to take a level of mu from 11 to 12. You'd be an idiot to NOT give up 1 level for 9 levels of Fighter and everything it gave you.

AD&D multiclassers were loads better then single classing until name level. And that's just truth.

I'd also have to posit that comparing gishes to clerics IS good...the cleric list has improved immeasurably since 1E, and direct dmg has lost a great deal of its power in 3E. There are very few roles that a cleric cannot play, if built towards it.

A Bard is a Gish with Practiced Spellcaster and a limited spell list, with class abilities as a kicker in place of full arcane casting.

The EK turns a wizard into a Gish, but with unrestricted spell list. That unrestricted spell list is why not so many class features.

You won't ever see a return to the f/mu of AD@D days. there's a reason why elves were so uber, and multi-classing was it. a Gish nowadays has to be balanced against a mage or fighter of equal level, NOT clearly better. Underweighting the importance of spellcasting is the biggest thing here. A Gish may not have the constant ability of a Fighter, but it's versatility clearly exceeds the fighter, and the ability to potentially nova is superb, especially towards higher levels.

If you want a true Gish build, strip the Bard of class abilities and start presenting something. Build the spell list, no bigger then a bard, and present some class abilities. We can judge it on those merits. IF you want full BAB, you have to give something up, just like the Duskblade. Full BAB is as important as full spellcasting...it's why they nerfed Divine Power like they did.

===Aelryinth


Deyvantius wrote:
EK can cast mirror image and gain a 50% miss chance, basically giving him extra hps.

Mirror Image is much, much better than 50% miss chance. For a melee character, it is one of the best possible protection spells, better than stoneskin or even displacement, though it does not last as long. Mirror Image + Displacement = at least 2 rounds in which your enemies have little chance of hitting you, sans True Seeing or Blindsight.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Deyvantius wrote:
EK can cast mirror image and gain a 50% miss chance, basically giving him extra hps.
Mirror Image is much, much better than 50% miss chance. For a melee character, it is one of the best possible protection spells, better than stoneskin or even displacement, though it does not last as long. Mirror Image + Displacement = at least 2 rounds in which your enemies have little chance of hitting you, sans True Seeing or Blindsight.

Blur stacks as well, resulting in a 1/20 chance of them getting to hit you, if they beat your AC :)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:


--Stuff about AD&D that holds little relavance to the current ruleset--

We arent talking a return the the 'AD&D fighter mage' we are talking about one created here, and now in this ruleset. Your points about how it worked in 1E are just about completely irrelavent.

Aelryinth wrote:

I'd also have to posit that comparing gishes to clerics IS good...the cleric list has improved immeasurably since 1E, and direct dmg has lost a great deal of its power in 3E. There are very few roles that a cleric cannot play, if built towards it.

A Bard is a Gish with Practiced Spellcaster and a limited spell list, with class abilities as a kicker in place of full arcane casting.

No a bard is a mix of rogue and mage, not fighter and mage. Many of its class abilities do not lend itself to being a fighter. In fact the bulk of them do not. The bard is most assuredly not a fighter mage with practiced spellcaster, thats what an EK is.

Aelryinth wrote:

The EK turns a wizard into a Gish, but with unrestricted spell list. That unrestricted spell list is why not so many class features.

While thats true, the one real class feature you get doesnt work with basic gish feats, arcane armor training, and arcane strike. The class does nothing to combine the 2 aspects of the character, they just kind of go alongside eachother. It serves little to no purpose the practiced spellcaster feat doesnt serve.

Aelryinth wrote:

You won't ever see a return to the f/mu of AD@D days. there's a reason why elves were so uber, and multi-classing was it. a Gish nowadays has to be balanced against a mage or fighter of equal level, NOT clearly better. Underweighting the importance of spellcasting is the biggest thing here. A Gish may not have the constant ability of a Fighter, but it's versatility clearly exceeds the fighter, and the ability to potentially nova is superb, especially towards higher levels.

Not looking for a return to anything. We are looking at a new class, here and now.

Aelryinth wrote:

If you want a true Gish build, strip the Bard of class abilities and start presenting something. Build the spell list, no bigger then a bard, and present some class abilities. We can judge it on those merits. IF you want full BAB, you have to give something up, just like the Duskblade. Full BAB is as important as full spellcasting...it's why they nerfed Divine Power like they did.

That is one of the paths we are looking at (bard chasis fighter mage class). The other is akin to an arcane paladin or ranger. Both of which have gasp...full BAB and spellcasting. Amazing isnt it? No one is saying that you shouldnt give something up for a full bab class, and in fact your own example is one that is used by those who support it. So really you um...agree? If you think the duskblade is adequate in terms of tradeoffs (spell list for BAB) why exactly is a full bab fighter mage class not possible?


Aelryinth wrote:


If you want a true Gish build, strip the Bard of class abilities and start presenting something. Build the spell list, no bigger then a bard, and present some class abilities. We can judge it on those merits. IF you want full BAB, you have to give something up, just like the Duskblade. Full BAB is as important as full spellcasting...it's why they nerfed Divine Power like they did.

Divine Power was nerfed because of its amazing stackability. It stacked with Divine Favor, Righteous Might, and Haste in 3.5. Now it no longer stacks 100% with Divine Favor or Haste.


I don't think the "sucky first 6 or 7 levels" of an EK build is as bad as some of us are making it out to be. Early on, higher physical stats and the right early feat choices certainly can make you feel very Gishy, especially if you take your level of Fighter at like 4th level. It's at the later levels that you need to start stacking this stuff up to catch up to others, and that's what the EK does.

I just wish that some feats didn't have the +1 bab requirement such as exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus. An EK wannabe has to choose between getting level 2 spells by level 3 or an exotic weapon and weapon focus by level 3.


Loopy wrote:

I don't think the "sucky first 6 or 7 levels" of an EK build is as bad as some of us are making it out to be. Early on, higher physical stats and the right early feat choices certainly can make you feel very Gishy, especially if you take your level of Fighter at like 4th level. It's at the later levels that you need to start stacking this stuff up to catch up to others, and that's what the EK does.

I just wish that some feats didn't have the +1 bab requirement such as exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus. An EK wannabe has to choose between getting level 2 spells by level 3 or an exotic weapon and weapon focus by level 3.

Its not that they suck. Its that they don't get to play what they want to play. The first levels are almost straight wizard, and just look at what happened to our witch friend who thought she could be near the front row at lvl 3. 1 round dead. The problem is that people want to take the EK into a front line character and can't until too high a level.


Loopy wrote:
I just wish that some feats didn't have the +1 bab requirement such as exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus. An EK wannabe has to choose between getting level 2 spells by level 3 or an exotic weapon and weapon focus by level 3.

IMO taking Fighter at 1st level is a no-brainer. You get to wear armor and wield weapons right away, 10+Con Hit Points, and at least 2 feats that'll help carry you through the next few levels. At 3rd level you're effectively acting as a 2nd level fighter (plus). Waiting until 4th level to use armor and real weaponry...kind of defeats the purpose IMO.


Caineach wrote:
Its not that they suck. Its that they don't get to play what they want to play. The first levels are almost straight wizard, and just look at what happened to our witch friend who thought she could be near the front row at lvl 3. 1 round dead. The problem is that people want to take the EK into a front line character and can't until too high a level.

I think that starting at 1st level with fighter (or 4th), using illusions, 14s in your physicals, and the right feat choices, you can do some reasonable combat work for that early phase. You're not everything you want to be, of course, but I think it works. Players just need to learn their limitations.


Helic wrote:
Loopy wrote:
I just wish that some feats didn't have the +1 bab requirement such as exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus. An EK wannabe has to choose between getting level 2 spells by level 3 or an exotic weapon and weapon focus by level 3.

IMO taking Fighter at 1st level is a no-brainer. You get to wear armor and wield weapons right away, 10+Con Hit Points, and at least 2 feats that'll help carry you through the next few levels. At 3rd level you're effectively acting as a 2nd level fighter (plus). Waiting until 4th level to use armor and real weaponry...kind of defeats the purpose IMO.

I can see someone not doing that in order to get the level 2 illusions and transmutations at 3rd, though. It'd be preference, but not a foregone conclusion.

Having said that, if you're going Human, I'd definitely do Fighter at level 1 so that you can get your Exotic Weapon and Weapon Focus at level 1. Elf, Dwarf, or some other race, I'd strongly consider Toughness at level 1, a prerequisite feat of some kind at level 3 (Dodge, etc.) and Weapon Focus as your level 4 bonus feat. Elf and Dwarf especially get a very decent racial weapon the moment they take Fighter.

It's just that level 2 illusions and transmutations are so huge especially when the opponents start getting nasty around level 3.

Liberty's Edge

I know I posted this in the other, similar thread and I apologize for repeating myself for those that are frequenting both threads, but I thought it is worth mentioning here as well ...

I have a Pathfinder base class currently under consideration for Kobold Quarterly that I am very excited about. The more I read what most people are saying they feel they most want in a fighter/magic user base class, the more excited I get because I really think this class will be what many of you (us) are looking for!

I and other players did extensive playtesting of the class at many different levels and we both had a lot of fun with it. Although I can't go into details, I can say that the class has been a blast to play and very much has the synergy between fighting and spells many are speaking of.

I honestly am very excited about the class and really hope you all get the chance to try it out.

I really wish I could say more !!! Stay tuned (hopefully)...

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Aelryinth wrote:
YOu guys gotta realize that BAB is the caster level of melee combat. Handing out BAB should be as precious as getting caster levels.

This is a myth. Getting +1s to hit is important, but it's not as essential as caster level to casters and it has never been that essential. A good illustration of this is how it's perfectly reasonable to multiclass a few levels of rogue into a pure fighter without losing much, but we have multiple-hundred-page-long threads about whether an arcane trickster is gimped.

Your to-hit needs to stay on the curve (or you need to be compensated for this somehow), but there are lots of ways to do that without full BAB.


Loopy wrote:

I can see someone not doing that in order to get the level 2 illusions and transmutations at 3rd, though. It'd be preference, but not a foregone conclusion.

Having said that, if you're going Human, {b] I'd definitely do Fighter at level 1 so that you can get your Exotic Weapon and Weapon Focus at level 1. [/b} Elf, Dwarf, or some other race, I'd strongly consider Toughness at level 1, a prerequisite feat of some kind at level 3 (Dodge, etc.) and Weapon Focus as your level 4 bonus feat. Elf and Dwarf especially get a very decent racial weapon the moment they take Fighter.

It's just that level 2 illusions and transmutations are so huge especially when the opponents start getting nasty around level 3.

What exotic weapon is worth taking with that extra feat?

As far as I'm concerned survivability comes first so Dodge and Toughness go first and use the extra human ability to get Improved Initiative because "knowing is half the battle" LOL.

Really I"m just curious to know what weapon is worth a feat.


A Man In Black wrote:

This is a myth. Getting +1s to hit is important, but it's not as essential as caster level to casters and it has never been that essential. A good illustration of this is how it's perfectly reasonable to multiclass a few levels of rogue into a pure fighter without losing much, but we have multiple-hundred-page-long threads about whether an arcane trickster is gimped.

That's only because of the power curve involved with higher level spells. Caster-level, per se, does not really help the caster. Access to the next level of spells really does!

If at BAB+13 characters could roll instant-death crits as a function of the game, fighter builds would NEVER give up BAB, for instance.


Deyvantius wrote:
Loopy wrote:

I can see someone not doing that in order to get the level 2 illusions and transmutations at 3rd, though. It'd be preference, but not a foregone conclusion.

Having said that, if you're going Human, {b] I'd definitely do Fighter at level 1 so that you can get your Exotic Weapon and Weapon Focus at level 1. [/b} Elf, Dwarf, or some other race, I'd strongly consider Toughness at level 1, a prerequisite feat of some kind at level 3 (Dodge, etc.) and Weapon Focus as your level 4 bonus feat. Elf and Dwarf especially get a very decent racial weapon the moment they take Fighter.

It's just that level 2 illusions and transmutations are so huge especially when the opponents start getting nasty around level 3.

What exotic weapon is worth taking with that extra feat?

As far as I'm concerned survivability comes first so Dodge and Toughness go first and use the extra human ability to get Improved Initiative because "knowing is half the battle" LOL.

Really I"m just curious to know what weapon is worth a feat.

I can't help but think that this question is bait. I think you know the benefits of exotic weapons. I suppose you feel that it's not worth a feat. That's fine.

I was thinking most of a Human EK with 14 str, 14 dex, 14 con taking Bastard Sword, weapon focus, and Toughness at level 1 so they could have some really decent damage output from the get-go (+4 dealing 1d10+2 at 19-20 crit), respectable AC with a chain shirt and shield (18) and HP to give them early survivability before those illusions and transmutations come at level 4 (15).


...or if each point of BAB would equal, say, d6 in damage.

It does now, too, sorta, via power attack, but... If. Hm.

IF AC didn't scale upwards indefinitely and so fast, more of BAB could translate to damage, thus making it more valuable. So instead of lower-BAB classes hitting less often THAT much, they'd instead do significantly less DAMAGE... Hm...

But, that's an entirely different system, and certainly not very backwards compatible.

I guess you could "cap" attack bonus from BAB to medium, and all points over that would automatically translate to damage, or possibly defence... or there should be more stackable feats eating up BAB -- or perhaps attack bonus -- for other benefits.


I am currently playing a fighter 1/wizard 3 character and so far i have been able to contribute as both caster and melee character. I want my character to make use of both fighter and caster options so I select spells that compliment me when I get into the thick of things. The second most memorable moment with the character so far was being grappled by a bear after having cast enlarge person on myself and then using shocking grasp and punches to finish off the bear. The most memorable moment though was accidently taking down the barbarian (our parties only pure melee character) with a critical fumble, the DM fudged a stabilize for the barb to keep them from rolling up a new character (was using a scythe hit for a little over 50 damage =) hah).


Kolokotroni wrote:

First one, boost combat ability significantly, more restricted spell list and primarily casts offensive spells through their weapon.

Second - smaller focus on combat, with a less restricted spell list and normal casting style.

I prefer the self-buffing fighter concept, myself. Sans buffs he is not as good as the fighter, but with them he is as good if not (birefly) better.


The AD&D references are kind of unnecessary. We all know the source material, and (I'm pretty sure) none of us in the Arcane Warrior camp want anything LIKE that - at all {uber-wise that is - clearly, flavor-wise that's exactly why we're posting - der!!! ;-) }

I'm in with the concept of Fighter/MAGE and FIGHTER/Mage in breakdowns, honestly.

I'm currently building a bladesinger 20-level class, and, frankly, I've got a bit of a split here as to which way to go.

Clearly, the concept if more FIGHTER/Mage overall - even back in the day, so that's where most of the class features, etc will play themselves out. Caster-wise, I'm thinking it'll top out at level 5 spells period, and sort of follow a duskblade-like progression (I use this as loosely as possible, mind you - it will NOT have anywhere near the casting capacity, and the spell list will be a *bit* more open, but in general - that's where I'm aiming).

It's got full BAB, and caps out at level 5, but no crazy spell capacity with that.

At the same time, I have another design to just rip the bard's features bare and work off of that BAB and spell progression and really, it wouldn't lose much at all, and gain 6th level casting. This one would be more the Fighter/MAGE in concept, and have a much wider spell list than the other.

In all cases, however, sacrifice in list, and spell levels are key features held prominently in mind. This is the tradeoff for mixing the two classes, and it's perfectly fair. I'll post stuff up when I have it ready for a review.


I'm interested to see what name an eventual "arcane warrior" might be called. Given that all Pathfinder classes have single word class names (even the 6 new ones), to keep the tradition, I'm curious what name would fit. The only one-word name I can come up with myself is MYSTIC, but that doesn't seem quite right.


..."Gish"

Probably not, though.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gish

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

here is what I came up with when I stripped down the bard and shifted a couple things to make a fighter/magic user class.

click here

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

F/MU slash Gish discussions get tiring because whether you're new or not, the entire 'gish' name harkens back to old style multi classing.

And old style multiclassers had it ALL. It wasn't until 15th+ level that you really noticed a difference in the power, and that's only if they continued to put xp into both classes. Most just stopped fighter and kept with spellcaster, although MU/T's continued to gain levels.

the Old multiclassers had it all at the start...fighter th, weapons, armor, and the same spells as the level 2 mage. They hit 2 at the same time as everyone else did 3, and then stayed EXACTLY one level behind, at most.

IN other words, they were ALWAYS good at both jobs. Maybe not the best, but the combo was unmatchable by a pure class. Only after xp became fixed/level did multi-classers start falling behind.

That's what people want out of a gish. They want the fighting ability out of the gate, and only minor costs to continue with the spellcasting later in their career. That's the way it used to be!

Don't poo-poo BAB. It's one of the reasons why people look down on Melee, is the ability to replace BAB. Look at 4E...attack bonuses are EVERYTHING. Every single +1 TH you can get is precious...and that's how it should be. If BAB is NOT important, then a Gish build wiht Medium BAB should be plenty fine! But no, you want FULL BAB, because you want to hit; you want to get your multiple attacks fast; you want to sack TH for Power Attack or Expertise; and mostly, you don't want to miss.

BAB is the caster level of the Melee classes. If you don't think it's valuable, then you should have no problem with a Medium BAB gish. IF you DO think it's valuable, then you never give it away to non-Melees. Don't want to play a straight melee? Suck up the BAB penalty. Don't want to play a straight caster? Suck up the casting penalties.

There's precious few people who think the the class abilities of the Fighter measure up to full casting and a good spell list.
==
And Divine Power was nerfed for two reasons. One was stacking. The other was that access to full BAB basically invalidated any reason to have a Fighter...you got the TH, the same # of attacks, and you could cast spells on top of it, instead of being restricted to feats. Now you can still get the TH, but you don't get the boost to Power attack, extra attacks, or anything like that.

BAB is precious. Do NOT give it away. It's the thing that makes Gishes gnash their teeth. You want full BAB, you pay for it with major restrictions on your casting power.

Really, you could easily make a Gish build with the bard chassis, and simply give them full access to the arcane list. That would be a VERY strong character, even before adding in class abilities.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Really, you could easily make a Gish build with the bard chassis, and simply give them full access to the arcane list. That would be a VERY strong character, even before adding in class abilities.

I agree. The divine counterparts (cleric/druid) are constructed this way. In fact, that's the rub when building to become an eldritch knight… assuming the quickest progression and taking fighter at 1st level, at levels 3-8 you're actually behind the average BAB curve, not catching up until 9th level. If the BAB progression to achieve eldritch knight actually followed avg BAB on the way there, I bet a lot of complaints about the prestige class would be satisfied.


Aelryinth wrote:

Don't poo-poo BAB. It's one of the reasons why people look down on Melee, is the ability to replace BAB. Look at 4E...attack bonuses are EVERYTHING. Every single +1 TH you can get is precious...and that's how it should be. If BAB is NOT important, then a Gish build wiht Medium BAB should be plenty fine! But no, you want FULL BAB, because you want to hit; you want to get your multiple attacks fast; you want to sack TH for Power Attack or Expertise; and mostly, you don't want to miss.

BAB is the caster level of the Melee classes. If you don't think it's valuable, then you should have no problem with a Medium BAB gish. IF you DO think it's valuable, then you never give it away to non-Melees. Don't want to play a straight melee? Suck up the BAB penalty. Don't want to play a straight caster? Suck up the casting penalties.

There's precious few people who think the the class abilities of the Fighter measure up to full casting and a good spell list.

You continue saying this, and you continue being wrong.

Do you know why fighter in 3.5 was considered one of the weakest classes? Because all he had was full BAB. That's it. That wonderful awesome "caster level" of yours was all fighter had, and it was worthless.

Until BAB gives instant death, an extra d6 of damage per BAB, a huge buff, or world changing consequences, then no. It is not and will never be the "caster level" of martial classes.

BAB will never be the "caster level" of martial classes - abilities are. High BAB isn't what makes fighters, paladins, or rangers strong, it's their fighter-only feats, their smite, their favored enemy and combat styles.

Do you know what you get when you make a spell level class with nothing else? You get the wizard. You get the sorcerer. What do you get when it's high BAB and nothing else? An NPC class.

Again, I think Duskblade is one of the best examples of a good F/M playable from level 1. It's very well balanced, it has good smack and cast abilities, and even a few blast from afar spells. Add a feat or two and you can expand your spell list to become even more personalized. It never got the charge and smack abilities of, well, dedicated chargers, nor did it get the Time Stop of full casters. It was comfortably in between.


Loopy wrote:
Helic wrote:


IMO taking Fighter at 1st level is a no-brainer.

I can see someone not doing that in order to get the level 2 illusions and transmutations at 3rd, though. It'd be preference, but not a foregone conclusion.

Having said that, if you're going Human, I'd definitely do Fighter at level 1 so that you can get your Exotic Weapon and Weapon Focus at level 1. Elf, Dwarf, or some other race, I'd strongly consider Toughness at level 1, a prerequisite feat of some kind at level 3 (Dodge, etc.) and Weapon Focus as your level 4 bonus feat. Elf and Dwarf especially get a very decent racial weapon the moment they take Fighter.

It's just that level 2 illusions and transmutations are so huge especially when the opponents start getting nasty around level 3.

Elves make all kinds of sense for a EK, though the Con hit hurts. Dwarves...I LOVE the idea of a dwarven, full-plated spell slinger, but the attributes are sub-par for the wizard end of it.

It really depends on your group. If you have someone devoted to being a full caster, straight to fighter at 1st level - you can never have enough fighters. No Sorc/Wiz in the group, then take Wizard for 3, go Fighter, and carry on.

Transmuter FTW, however. Bonus attributes and more buff spells (yes, you will get gear that overwhelms it later, but if it helps you survive that long, it wasn't a waste)? Though 5 levels of Diviner looks very attractive (+5 Init and always act in surprise round). Depends how devoted you are to winning the Initiative race.

Grand Lodge

Caineach, I can kiss you for that link. Showing that to the DM next game so I can stop taking AoO...will also ask to switch feats as I don´t need quickdraw anymore. May change arcane bound item back to weapon instead of shield...even though the shield is a better option as it can´t be disarmed. Should make my game less head bangingly stupid...although that does make me wonder about the blurb in bucklers....

As for the 14 int...I don´t like being limited by a magic item. If the magic item gets MDJ or even dispelled, your boned. Not to mention fighter mages are notoriously always broke between spells, weapons and armor.

14 con is bad...rogues aren´t suppose to be front liners. They get in place, be stabby death and then leave before things get too hot. If your as survival as a rogue, that is not good enough for the front line.

16 str I agree is good enough...14...not so much, but at least we do agree on that.

5ft step doesn´t help when they have reach...or you wanna cast a touch spell. One of the big perks of EK builds is that touch spells don´t utter fubar you after all.


Loopy wrote:


I can't help but think that this question is bait. I think you know the benefits of exotic weapons. I suppose you feel that it's not worth a feat. That's fine.

I was thinking most of a Human EK with 14 str, 14 dex, 14 con taking Bastard Sword, weapon focus, and Toughness at level 1 so they could have some really decent damage output from the get-go (+4 dealing 1d10+2 at 19-20 crit), respectable AC with a chain shirt and shield (18) and HP to give them early survivability before those illusions and transmutations come at level 4 (15).

Not all man. I was just wondering if there was distinct weapon you had in mind that went with a nice combo. I really had no clue what weapon you were going to suggest.


Aelryinth wrote:
And Divine Power was nerfed for two reasons. One was stacking. The other was that access to full BAB basically invalidated any reason to have a Fighter...you got the TH, the same # of attacks, and you could cast spells on top of it, instead of being restricted to feats. Now you can still get the TH, but you don't get the boost to Power attack, extra attacks, or anything like that.

Crunch the numbers, you will see that the PF version of DP is actually better than the 3.5 version. The PF version always gives you an extra attack at your highest bonus, while the 3.5 version gives you an iterative attack at -5 to -15. The 3.5 version starts out slightly better at level 7, but around level 10-12, it falls behind the PF version and stays there.

At level 20
PF version gives you +6 to hit, +6 to damage, and an extra attack. A cleric is attacking at +21/+21/+16/+11 with +6 damage.
The 3.5 version gives you +6 strength(+3 to hit, +3-5 damage depending on weapon choice), and +5 BAB. A cleric is attacking at +23/+18/+13/+8 with a +3-5 damage.

So, -2 on the first attack and +3 on every other attack with a higher damage bonus. I'll take the PF version, especially since it stacks with my belt of strength. Yes, it doesn't stack with DF and haste, but that just means one less buff for me to worry about casting and I don't need to worry about getting a weapon/armor of speed or haste spell.

The problem with BAB is that it gives you another attack at a much lower bonus. Against an equal level foe, this attack misses 50-75% of the time. Higher level spells do more damage, have nastier effects, AND have a higher DC.


Charender wrote:
Crunch the numbers, you will see that the PF version of DP is actually better than the 3.5 version. The PF version always gives you an extra attack at your highest bonus, while the 3.5 version gives you an iterative attack at -5 to -15. The 3.5 version starts out slightly better at level 7, but around level 10-12, it falls behind the PF version and stays there.

True, but only if you account for the single spell alone, with no other spells in play.

The 3.5 version increased BAB, which could not only give an additional attack, but stacked with haste and divine favor, which the PF version does not do.

The nerf wasn't so much to the power of the spell, but to the ability the spell had to stack with other magics.


As someone who is currently playing an EK (F1/Wizard6/EK 2) – I actually like the class. I see myself as a Wizard who occasionally fights and is slightly less of glass cannon. I do miss the spell levels I “lost” – but that’s just the greedy side of me that wants everything. (I think one of the Paizo folks on the boards suggested that you may be better off just taking two levels of fighter and then staying fully focused on Wizard rather than becoming an EK – shrugs.)

I’ve had some great fun gaming experiences as an EK like zapping a ghoul with Scotching Ray and then running on my next turn to whack another ghoul with my longsword that was threatening our wounded cleric. Or holding off a mid-level baddie who has snuck up on us from the rear and I held my own (barely). [I was just a meat shield for three rounds until I could run away and be hit one more time and drop to five hit points – but it was fun and I actually did some damage!]

The reality is that the fighter/mage has to be a compromise for game balance, and I am okay with it. The fighter end quickly becomes less effective for me as an EK – because I don’t hit anywhere near the some rate (or do more than so-so damage) as the melee guys – but that’s cool. I can fly and heat things up with a fireball....


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Charender wrote:
Crunch the numbers, you will see that the PF version of DP is actually better than the 3.5 version. The PF version always gives you an extra attack at your highest bonus, while the 3.5 version gives you an iterative attack at -5 to -15. The 3.5 version starts out slightly better at level 7, but around level 10-12, it falls behind the PF version and stays there.

True, but only if you account for the single spell alone, with no other spells in play.

The 3.5 version increased BAB, which could not only give an additional attack, but stacked with haste and divine favor, which the PF version does not do.

The nerf wasn't so much to the power of the spell, but to the ability the spell had to stack with other magics.

I highlighted the key word in your statement. At some levels it gave you an attack, at others levels it didn't, and even when it gives you an attack, that attack is at a -5 to -15. The PF version always gives you an extra attack at your highest bonus.

The original premise I was refuting was that the spell was changed because BAB is so powerful and thus the 3.5 version giving you BAB was OP, when it was really nerfed because of stackability.

The actual power of the spell was increased in PF, but the stackability of the spell was nerfed.


Panda40 wrote:
As someone who is currently playing an EK (F1/Wizard6/EK 2) – I actually like the class. I see myself as a Wizard who occasionally fights and is slightly less of glass cannon.

This is what the EK does, and does it well. It's not meant to be a front line fighter - just someone who doesn't roll up and die in melee. EKs make for very survivable and self-sufficient wizards, but not melee monsters.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that, it's more a matter that the PF rules lack a viable melee character with arcane spells.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Don't poo-poo BAB. It's one of the reasons why people look down on Melee, is the ability to replace BAB. Look at 4E...attack bonuses are EVERYTHING. Every single +1 TH you can get is precious...and that's how it should be. If BAB is NOT important, then a Gish build wiht Medium BAB should be plenty fine! But no, you want FULL BAB, because you want to hit; you want to get your multiple attacks fast; you want to sack TH for Power Attack or Expertise; and mostly, you don't want to miss.

BAB is the caster level of the Melee classes. If you don't think it's valuable, then you should have no problem with a Medium BAB gish. IF you DO think it's valuable, then you never give it away to non-Melees. Don't want to play a straight melee? Suck up the BAB penalty. Don't want to play a straight caster? Suck up the casting penalties.

There's precious few people who think the the class abilities of the Fighter measure up to full casting and a good spell list.

You continue saying this, and you continue being wrong.

Do you know why fighter in 3.5 was considered one of the weakest classes? Because all he had was full BAB. That's it. That wonderful awesome "caster level" of yours was all fighter had, and it was worthless.

Until BAB gives instant death, an extra d6 of damage per BAB, a huge buff, or world changing consequences, then no. It is not and will never be the "caster level" of martial classes.

BAB will never be the "caster level" of martial classes - abilities are. High BAB isn't what makes fighters, paladins, or rangers strong, it's their fighter-only feats, their smite, their favored enemy and combat styles.

Do you know what you get when you make a spell level class with nothing else? You get the wizard. You get the sorcerer. What do you get when it's high BAB and nothing else? An NPC class.

Again, I think Duskblade is one of the best examples of a good F/M playable from level 1. It's very well balanced, it has good smack and cast...

You continue to say this, and YOU continue to be wrong.

The Fighter is considered a weak class because MELEE is considered a weak way of fighting. All of the Melee classes are considered inferior to spellcasting uberness. Fighter feats can make extremely powerful builds, but the rules of Melee combat and the power of spellcasting discriminate fiercely against all the Melee combatants. You lever in 'Fighter', but the correct term is 'Melee class'.

Melee classes are discriminated against in:
Lack of exclusive mastery of their shtick - Melee combat.
Easy access to high physical ability scores.
Spells that sub for BAB.
TH bonuses easy to come by.
Armor isn't more effective by feat.
Nat Armor more valuable then armor.
Everyone gets BAB, not everyone gets caster levels.
Lousy saves.
Can't perform full class actions on a standard action. Spells can.
100% ready all day doesn't mean anything to the 4 encounter adventurer's day.
Lack of ways to overcome magic.

Full BAB is 'devalued' because everyone gets SOME BAB, but not everyone gets caster levels. This is a gross inequity...it's why To9S brought in 'initiator level.' Lo, the melees got full IL, and every other class got 1/2! It's also why in 4E, it's not at all easy to replace BAB and get free TH's. Ability score caps are a prime part of this.

Full BAB powers ALL the other melee abilities. Hits more. Attacks more. Allows you to sack more TH for dmg/AC. The holy grail of Gishdom is 4 attacks and 9th level spells. Without full BAB you can't get that attack. At lower levels, you are consistently behind the at/dmg curve, and it only gets worse.

If you don't think BAB is important, then you don't need it for any Gish class. When you realize it IS important, you won't give it to a non-Melee class. It's that BAB + Class abilities that define a Melee, NOT just class abilities, whereas spellcasting basically defines itself, and the class it is attached to becomes almost unimportant, because the right spell list completely circumvents any weakness of the class.

You have to judge melee and spellcasting VERY differently because of how their abilities interact. SPellcasting has next to no interaction wiht physical stats and BAB...it's completely caster level-based and ability-score dependent.

BAB is the 'caster-level' of melee combat. Unfortunately, wizards get half caster-melee levels, and Melees get no caster-spell levels. Quite unfair, but what can you do?

As for your example - what do you get when you pair a Melee's class abilities with a poor BAB? You get a useless class.

What do you get when you combine a spellcaster with a full BAB? An overpowered Behemoth.

What do you get when you combine a Full BAB with a Melee's abilities? A balanced class with synergy.

What do you get when you combine spellcasting with caster level loss? A PrC class few people will take...exactly like they won't take a Melee without full BAB, and why they want their f/mu Gishes to have both.

A full BAB with no class abilities is akin to full spellcaster levels with the Adept spell list, or a great spell list with -5 caster levels...it doesn't matter how good a caster you are if your spells suck, or how good your spell list is if you can't use or cast them. It's why Ranger/Paladin spellcasting is considered the equivalent of FOur Feats...it's just not that great or important.

==Aelryinth


People either love Fighter/Mages, or they hate them. Or they think they're OK.


Aelryinth wrote:
What do you get when you combine a spellcaster with a full BAB? An overpowered Behemoth.

Why?

You've already said the two abilities don't interact. In fact I venture you could take a level 17 wizard and surreptitiously change his BAB to 17 and he wouldn't play the character any differently. He MIGHT take more risks with touch attack spells, and he would have a superior CMD, but in the scheme of things those are relatively minor tweaks. So yes, please explain in excrutiating detail why this would be so overpowered. As you have said in your own post, BAB is undervalued because it's easy to make up for etc. Spellcasting IS intrinsically superior to melee combat at higher levels, so someone that had something crazily overpowered like FULL BAB and FULL WIZARD CASTING would be able to a)take a full attack or b)cast a single spell. Since spellcasting is so much better you will likely choose to cast most of the time and your BAB doesn't really come into it. If you don't, then your caster level doesn't really matter much since you're melee.

This is precisely the reason why I feel a full BAB/bard-progression caster with focused spell list would be pretty balanced. Don't give him all the caster tricks a full arcane caster would have, only spells that would augment his own and his companions combat ability. He won't step on the caster's toes because that's not his shtick, he uses magic to augment his combat. He won't necessarily step on the fighter's toes because we'll limit his versatility through lack of bonus feats/no tower shields/heavy armor.

Again, the logic I don't get is this:
1/2 BAB+Full spells=Fine
3/4 BAB+2/3 spells=Fine
3/4 BAB+Full spells=Fine
Full BAB+2/3 Spells=OH MY GOD END OF THE WORLD OVERPOWERED MUNCHKIN.
Full BAB+1/2 Spells+plethora of other godly abilities (Paladin)=Fine


meatrace wrote:


Again, the logic I don't get is this:
1/2 BAB+Full spells=Fine
3/4 BAB+2/3 spells=Fine
3/4 BAB+Full spells=Fine
Full BAB+2/3 Spells=OH MY GOD END OF THE WORLD OVERPOWERED MUNCHKIN.
Full BAB+1/2 Spells+plethora of other godly abilities (Paladin)=Fine

Actually Bard would be 3/4 BAB + 2/3 spells + tons of skills and abilities=Fine


Charender wrote:
meatrace wrote:


Again, the logic I don't get is this:
1/2 BAB+Full spells=Fine
3/4 BAB+2/3 spells=Fine
3/4 BAB+Full spells=Fine
Full BAB+2/3 Spells=OH MY GOD END OF THE WORLD OVERPOWERED MUNCHKIN.
Full BAB+1/2 Spells+plethora of other godly abilities (Paladin)=Fine
Actually Bard would be 3/4 BAB + 2/3 spells + tons of skills and abilities=Fine

Heh, yes you're right. And druid also has a ton of abilities, as does a cleric now, and wizards but yeah.

As an addendum to my post above, I will agree that while not OVERPOWERED a full bab/full caster character would potentially subsume two disparate party roles which is why I would never argue for such. And myself I'd be fine with a full bab/half caster IF the spell selection was favorable and the class abilities allowed us to "stab dudes magically" as AMIB once so eloquently put it.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

meatrace wrote:


As an addendum to my post above, I will agree that while not OVERPOWERED a full bab/full caster character would potentially subsume two disparate party roles which is why I would never argue for such. And myself I'd be fine with a full bab/half caster IF the spell selection was favorable and the class abilities allowed us to "stab dudes magically" as AMIB once so eloquently put it.

Personally, I don't get the love of stabbing dudes magically. It became the "in" thing in the 3rd edition cycle for Fighter/Mages, but I never really cared for it much.

I'd much rather see Eldritch Knight's requirements adjusted and their dependency on swift actions reduced. BAB+4 and 2nd-level spells would have EK mirroring the 3rd-level minimums for Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge (Rogue3/Wizard3 and Cleric3/Wizard3, respectively) and would have the added benefit of making the EK somewhat more melee-capable in early levels.

However, I also think it would be better to adjust all three classes requirements so that they can be entered at 6th-level, rather than 7th. Seven levels is a long time to wait for your concept to really kick in, and it's after 5th-level that the multiclassing really starts to hurt.

Spell Critical should be a free action, or Arcane Armor Training needs to be reworked so that it doesn't require a swift action. The former is somewhat problematic because the lucky EK could get a string of crits and spells in one round, which could be pretty powerful. The latter is difficult, though, because as written, a straight Wizard or Sorcerer can take the feat and the swift action is there as a disincentive for that. That could be reworked as a class feature for the EK, though (perhaps adding Arcane Armor Training as a prerequisite), which would allow them to reduce the failure chance without a swift action.


Kevin Morris wrote:
Personally, I don't get the love of stabbing dudes magically. It became the "in" thing in the 3rd edition cycle for Fighter/Mages, but I never really cared for it much.

I agree with the rest of your post, but eh? Other than Duskblade there weren't really any classes that did this. The Spell Critical ability is the closest thing in PF Core to what I'm looking for, you just don't get it until like level 16 and you have no control over it. I would like something more akin to Duskblade spell channel.

101 to 150 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.