So Ill give you a little bit of background on what I am trying to accomplish.
I thought the arcane archer had some really cool class abilities but upon further research I discovered how problematic AA builds are so I was looking in the UC and discovered the SpellSlinger! How awesomely flavored.
So as I was building this character I realized that without the favored school ability of wizard there really is no reason at all not to replace 10 of your wizard levels with EK, and you end up with almost 3/4 bab so you can actually use guns effectively. Then I thought well 10 lvls of wizard have been replaced; mine as well replace every single level possible while retaining the ability to cast relatively high level spells. With this in mind I think that 1 Gunslinger 1 wiz 10ek with magical knack on EK. This should result in a character with Grit, BAB 11, CL 11, and 6th level spells at lvl 12 = not too shabby considering all the +'s that Spell Slinger gives you. Then at that point in the game deciding if I want more wiz levels with another + caster lvl PgC or if I want to combat focus with only 6th lvl spells and finish off with more gunslinger.
I would like everyone's thoughts on this and FAST! ;D
Also knowing this fact why would anyone ever take more that one lvl in Spell slinger?
Also does anyone know of an even better way of building this character
Well the prereqs for Ek are able to cast 3rd level arcane, so wiz 5 is the minimum. That would be my biggest concern with your build.
Magical Knack is not applicable for Eldritch Knight since (1) it has no caster level of it's own, but instead uses that of another classes and (2) the trait specifically states you apply it to a class, which is not a prestige class.
Wouldn't he just be able to apply it to wizard to recieve the desired effect? I realize that not mentioning that slight error in his wording may set a mental precedent for later acts, but really was pointing it out really even necessary?
Wouldn't he just be able to apply it to wizard to recieve the desired effect? I realize that not mentioning that slight error in his wording may set a mental precedent for later acts, but really was pointing it out really even necessary?