{. . .}
If it's the game's fault, it's Pathfinder's fault, because we are describing the average Pathfinder game. We are not making this up. Note that several of the posters who prefer higher levels also say they don't actually play there a lot.
{. . .}
Actually, it's encouraging to see that (according to the poll summary, at least) a significant number of the respondents preferred Epic level play (21+). By no means a majority, and in fact the smallest category (probably in part due to most people lacking opportunity to try it out), but still a significant chunk of the market, despite Pathfinder having just a total of a few paragraphs of support for Epic levels (the broken travesty that is Mythic doesn't count).
{. . .}
If it's the game's fault, it's Pathfinder's fault, because we are describing the average Pathfinder game. We are not making this up. Note that several of the posters who prefer higher levels also say they don't actually play there a lot.
{. . .}Actually, it's encouraging to see that (according to the poll summary, at least) a significant number of the respondents preferred Epic level play (21+). By no means a majority, and in fact the smallest category (probably in part due to most people lacking opportunity to try it out), but still a significant chunk of the market, despite Pathfinder having just a total of a few paragraphs of support for Epic levels (the broken travesty that is Mythic doesn't count).
Honestly, Epic play is best kept without "Epic" rules - 21+ play works fine with just the normal rules. Epic Feats, Epic Spells, and all that nonsense just create a garbled mess.
Prestige Classes are fantastic for effectively maintaining your class without trying to come up with weird "level 21+" versions of the class. Or just multiclass.
Mythic is... well, Mythic isn't so much for "Epic" play as it is a means for playing Deities, honestly.
^I realize that WotC's implementation of Epic Rules left a LOT to be desired. But at least it was an honest attempt.
Mythic is an even worse means for playing deities. I've heard Exalted does a lot better job of this, but in fairness I haven't had a chance to try it myself.
I think the mythic overlay concept was genius. I do, however, think that the execution was flawed. I don't think mythic was ever meant to be a replacement for epic, which probably one of the reasons a lot of people don't like it. When you buy an apple and expect it to taste like an orange your bound to be disappointed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm absolutely on board with more support for high-level play. I'd like to do more of it. However I think that a class or prestige class progression should be enjoyable - and fill its intended role - at most levels of play. I know that perfectly balancing all classes at all levels is not feasible, but I didn't think this was controversial.
There are three different kinds of games where prestige classes are concerned:
1) Games that end around the point prestige classes start working, where players don't really get to enjoy them. Prestige class design fails these games.
2) Games running from low to high level which slog through a lot of bad levels for prestige classes before things finally come together roughly halfway through the play experience. Prestige classes are rocky here - play experience could be smoothed out.
3) Games that start around level 10, run through high levels, and are great for prestige classes.
Type (1) and (2) games may or may not be the majority but they're certainly not niche or oddball. This is not E6 we're talking about. Prestige classes should work for these games, not just in level (3).
On the other hand I liked the result of the old FAQ. Gnomes should be able to learn Arcane Strike. Master dwarven smiths should have a better crafting option available than 'Master Craftsman'. Theurges and Tricksters should both get a little help for meeting their prerequisites. Leaving the loophole in the rules allowed me to fix several problems in the game itself at a minor cost without having to add ever more houserules - for example a SLA allowed me to make my Dr. Frankenstein Alchemist miniboss with Craft Construct even though alchemists don't qualify for crafting feats.
The previous SLA ruling created a lot of mess and was fairly counterintuitive, but it allowed for build options and character concepts that are otherwise hard to get off the ground. Ideally I'd still like Paizo to keep the SLA ruling as it is now, but also go back and actually properly resolve the problems the old FAQ fixed. For starters by easing the requirements for the hybrid classes and adding a viable crafting option for non-caster crafters.
Fix Ideas:
1) Arcane SLAs qualify you for Arcane Strike, specifically.
2) Master Craftsman is free. If you have 5 or more ranks in a craft skill that can be used to make magic items, you qualify for Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magic Arms & Armour, and Craft Construct. You may treat your ranks in any craft skill you have 5 or more ranks in as a caster level for purposes of crafting items with those feats, but must use that craft skill to create magic items. If you have 5 or more ranks in multiple craft skills you may use any of them to make magic items. Without the extra feat tax, artisan crafters are a little less behind caster crafters, and being able to master multiple craft skills makes them more versatile. They're still not quite as good as caster crafters but I'm OK with that personally.
3) Shift Prestige Class pre-reqs from level 2-4 abilities in two classes to 5-6 skill ranks and level 1-2 abilities in two classes. This maintains the entry level for the prestige class at the traditional spot while allowing more flexibility in how you approach the class.
Theurge: Arcana 5 ranks, Religion 5 ranks, Spellcraft 5 ranks, 1st level arcane & divine spellcasting. This gives you one level earlier entry and allows a 4/1/MT split that, like early entry, mitigates loss to one spellcasting progression though the other progression is still significantly behind. It also has the effect of making spontaneous theurges much more viable since they still qualify at level 6.
Arcane Trickster: Disable 5, Escape 5, Arcana 5, Mage Hand and 1st level casting, Sneak Attack +d6. Minimum required caster level loss, no incentive to mutliclass rogue/viv for earlier entry, and you could even go slayer if you want to be more durable. Plus, again, easier entry if your arcane half is a sorcerer or bard.
4) Spellbook and familiar progression is considered part of a spellcasting progression for purposes of prestige classes. This hopefully gives prepared arcane casters something to compensate for the fact that prestige class entry just got a lot easier for the spontaneous types. Also not sure why it's not part of spellcasting progression in the first place.
As-is here's how the EK works:
-For the first 7 levels or so, you suck all around at everything you're trying to do. You're a pretty s!~~ty combatant, and your spells suck too.
With all do respect, if you can't build a functional character because you are a wizard with higher BAB, more HP, improved saves, etc, but two caster levels behind, you should do more research before giving advice on how the game should work.
Prestige classes could probably use a little boost, specifically allowing earlier entry. I don't think there is really any disagreement about that. But in the context of the ruling on SLAs, people complaining that they can't build a decent character says more about their understanding then it says about the rules and game balance.
I don't think you understand how big a deal being 2 caster levels behind is.
Especially when for those first few levels (through 7th since without early entry you can't enter until 6th) you're 2 CL (an entire spell level, especially this specific spell level since 4th level spells are some of the best around) behind, but only 1 BaB ahead...which is still 1 behind a 3/4 BaB class, which already have low to hit without their special boosters, which you lack.
Being 2 caster levels behind is inconvenient, but crippling? No.
You're temporarily running even with the 1 to 6 casters (as they catch up to your spellcasting by 7th), and then by 9th level you have 4th level spells (along with a +6 BAB) and afterwards pull ahead on both spellcasting and BAB. The 1-6 caster later catches up with your BAB around the time you get 9th level spells.
If those 2-3 levels where you're "merely" even with a 1-6 caster are completely unbearable to you, you probably had no business multiclassing to begin with.
And if your campaign is going to end by 9th level, then Eldritch Knight is simply the wrong choice for character progression.
And now I'm thinking that part of the reason for the reversion is that the SLA early entry loophole was not something Paizo wanted to have to worry about for every single prestige class they designed in the future.
Being 2 caster levels behind is inconvenient, but crippling? No.
You're temporarily running even with the 1 to 6 casters (as they catch up to your spellcasting by 7th), and then by 9th level you have 4th level spells (along with a +6 BAB) and afterwards pull ahead on both spellcasting and BAB. The 1-6 caster later catches up with your BAB around the time you get 9th level spells.
If those 2-3 levels where you're "merely" even with a 1-6 caster are completely unbearable to you, you probably had no business multiclassing to begin with.
And if your campaign is going to end by 9th level, then Eldritch Knight is simply the wrong choice for character progression.
And now I'm thinking that part of the reason for the reversion is that the SLA early entry loophole was not something Paizo wanted to have to worry about for every single prestige class they designed in the future.
This kind of reads like an explanation of the current prestige orthodoxy rather than any sort of rebuttal.
And now I'm thinking that part of the reason for the reversion is that the SLA early entry loophole was not something Paizo wanted to have to worry about for every single prestige class they designed in the future.
They're planning on making SO many new prestige classes that it was really an issue? I find that hard to believe.
Classes, feats, possibly other things?They're planning on making SO many new prestige classes that it was really an issue? I find that hard to believe.
And now I'm thinking that part of the reason for the reversion is that the SLA early entry loophole was not something Paizo wanted to have to worry about for every single prestige class they designed in the future.
It's quite possible it COULD be one of those. I've been thinking that something from one of the upcoming books (occult/unchained) might have brought it about. My original quotes was doubting "every single prestige class" they where planning on making brought this on as they don't make a lot of those on average.
Being 2 caster levels behind is inconvenient, but crippling? No.
You're temporarily running even with the 1 to 6 casters (as they catch up to your spellcasting by 7th), and then by 9th level you have 4th level spells (along with a +6 BAB) and afterwards pull ahead on both spellcasting and BAB. The 1-6 caster later catches up with your BAB around the time you get 9th level spells.
If those 2-3 levels where you're "merely" even with a 1-6 caster are completely unbearable to you, you probably had no business multiclassing to begin with.
You need 5 levels of Wizard and 1 of Fighter (or something) to get into EK. So at 6th level you're at a whopping +4 BaB, and a CL of 5.
At level 7 you have +5 BaB and a CL of 6.
At level 8 you have +6 BaB and a CL of 7.
So it takes you 8 levels to catch up to a Magus in BaB, and to overtake him in spellcasting level. You spend the first 7 AS I SAID being both a shitty caster and a shitty fighter.
After that, you still don't overtake him in BaB by more than +1 except at very few levels (though your overall attack bonus will be a bit lower...and the Magus has pretty low attack bonuses for a 3/4 BaB class), but your casting increases somewhat better. Making you AGAIN AS I SAID middlingly good at casting and fighting, but not really good enough at either to justify waiting 8-9 levels for it, especially the fighting bit.
Reading comprehension is a good life skill.
Being 2 caster levels behind is inconvenient, but crippling? No.
You're temporarily running even with the 1 to 6 casters (as they catch up to your spellcasting by 7th), and then by 9th level you have 4th level spells (along with a +6 BAB) and afterwards pull ahead on both spellcasting and BAB. The 1-6 caster later catches up with your BAB around the time you get 9th level spells.
If those 2-3 levels where you're "merely" even with a 1-6 caster are completely unbearable to you, you probably had no business multiclassing to begin with.
And if your campaign is going to end by 9th level, then Eldritch Knight is simply the wrong choice for character progression.
And now I'm thinking that part of the reason for the reversion is that the SLA early entry loophole was not something Paizo wanted to have to worry about for every single prestige class they designed in the future.
Excellent points. Wizard is an *extremely* powerful class. "Slightly delayed wizard" is still very functional.
Look at it this way. Would a party of 8's adventure with a Wiz6? Certainly he'll bring some added functionality, but maybe he'll be a bit fragile. Still, it happens in PFS all the time to have a PC 2 levels lower than the others. I'd say that wizard would be welcomed and not be a drain on the party.
Now what about the party of 8's with a Wiz6 who has more HP than a Wiz8, better Fort save, CL of 8 (trait), 2 bonus feats (perhaps PBS and Precise for rays), +2 BAB over the Wiz6, and the WBL of an L8? That's an EK at his lowest point (F1/Wiz6/EK1). He's *still* a major asset to a party because he's a wizard. Is he as powerful as a pure wizard? No, but he's still an asset. Pure wizard is too powerful IMO and EK is an appropriate patch.
You're missing a key point in that you're 2 caster levels behind (meaning a whole spell level), your BAB is 3/4, and you have next to no abilities whatsoever By jumping into EK, you've even denied yourself some Wizard School abilities.
EK only exacerbates these issues because that class itself has no abilities at all. You gain 1 Bonus Combat Feat at lv1 and 1 Bonus Combat Feat at lv5 - woo~...
Every other base class in PF, and even nearly every other Prestige Class, has been designed around the idea of "no empty levels".
EK is basically nothing BUT Empty Levels.
You get a Feat at lv1. Aaand then you have 3 dead levels following that. You'll hit a 4th level spells at EK3, but EK2 and 4 are both dead.
After EK5, you've got another 3 levels of nothing.
And then, at level 10 - GASP! SPELL CRITICAL! THAT'S... such an abysmally underwhelming capstone ability. Like... really? Spell Combat and Spellstrike are better than this ability, since you just have to hit, not critical.
I mean, hell, look at the Capstone abilities of some other prestige classes - Battle Herald lets you set up multiple commands at once, allowing you to create complex bonuses for those under your command; Dragon Disciple lets you use Form of the Dragon II twice a day, and this is on top of having given you permanent dragon wings just a level ago; a Master Spy can just straight-up pose as another creature entirely (confusing even DIVINATION spells) - for a spy campaign, that's freakish.
---
So instead of playing a Magus or a Blade Adept Arcanist the entire time you were working on getting to EK, you are building up to the most bland setup in the entire game.
I can't even say "vanilla" because vanilla has a flavor - EK is verging on STYROFOAM.
Even with the SLA exploit getting you in at lv3, it's just... nothing. A whopping 10 levels of jack squat nothing besides 3 Bonus Feats that taking Ranger would have gotten you and more, and a Capstone ability that is so embarrassingly underwhelming that most other prestige classes would've had it as a level 3-5 ability.
o it takes you 8 levels to catch up to a Magus in BaB, and to overtake him in spellcasting level. You spend the first 7 AS I SAID being both a s*$~ty caster and a s%++ty fighter.
2. W1 1 1 equal 1 1
3. W2 2 2 equal 1 1
4. W3 2 3 behind 2 2
5. W4 3 3 equal 2 2
6. W5 3 4 behind 3 2
7. E1 4 5 behind 3 3
8. E2 5 6 behind 3 3
9. E3 6 6 equal 4 3
10 E4 7 7 equal 4 4
11 E5 8 8 equal 5 4
12 E6 9 9 equal 5 4
13 E7 10 9 ahead 6 5
14 E8 11 10 ahead 6 5
15 E9 12 11 ahead 7 5
16 E10 13 12 ahead 7 6
17 W6 14 12 ahead 8 6
18 W7 14 13 ahead 8 6
19 W8 15 14 ahead 9 6
20 F2 16 15 ahead 9 6
You are ahead of 3/4 BAB 9 levels
You are behind for 4 levels
You are equal for 7 levels
You are behind in BAB for levels 4, 6, 7, and 8.
At 9+ everything only goes well for the EK.
People who make EK's are interested in playing characters who have versatile casting(not a highly specific spell list) AND are good at fighting when they need to be.
The prestige requirements prevent this from happening until your midway through your character progression. If the requirements were brought down such that you could enter the class at level three, then the character would do what you actually want in a realistic way.
If my character claims to be a skilled warrior and magician, but can't follow through, then it impacts upon suspension of disbelief.
o it takes you 8 levels to catch up to a Magus in BaB, and to overtake him in spellcasting level. You spend the first 7 AS I SAID being both a s*$~ty caster and a s%++ty fighter.** spoiler omitted **
You are behind in BAB for levels 4, 6, 7, and 8.
At 9+ everything only goes well for the EK.
Bruh that is literally exactly what I f*+@ing said, in the same post I said:
Reading comprehension is a good life skill.
You're as bad as LazarX, quoting people and telling them they're wrong, and then "correcting" them by saying the exact same thing they just said.
Don't forget Arcane Accuracy giving you a free +Int to-hit for a Swift every fight it matters.
Being 2 caster levels behind is inconvenient, but crippling? No.
You're temporarily running even with the 1 to 6 casters (as they catch up to your spellcasting by 7th), and then by 9th level you have 4th level spells (along with a +6 BAB) and afterwards pull ahead on both spellcasting and BAB. The 1-6 caster later catches up with your BAB around the time you get 9th level spells.
If those 2-3 levels where you're "merely" even with a 1-6 caster are completely unbearable to you, you probably had no business multiclassing to begin with.
You need 5 levels of Wizard and 1 of Fighter (or something) to get into EK. So at 6th level you're at a whopping +4 BaB, and a CL of 5.
At level 7 you have +5 BaB and a CL of 6.
At level 8 you have +6 BaB and a CL of 7.
So it takes you 8 levels to catch up to a Magus in BaB, and to overtake him in spellcasting level. You spend the first 7 AS I SAID being both a s%$$ty caster and a s#~!ty fighter.
After that, you still don't overtake him in BaB by more than +1 except at very few levels (though your overall attack bonus will be a bit lower...and the Magus has pretty low attack bonuses for a 3/4 BaB class), but your casting increases somewhat better. Making you AGAIN AS I SAID middlingly good at casting and fighting, but not really good enough at either to justify waiting 8-9 levels for it, especially the fighting bit.
Reading comprehension is a good life skill.
I agree that reading comprehension is a good life skill. Your accusation that I can't read because I'm disagreeing with you is noted.
Depending on when you'd take that martial level, you'd spend 1-6 levels as a poor to mediocre martial but a perfectly fine caster. At L7 your casting falls behind a straight spontaneous caster, but you begin the process of catching your BAB up. By L9 your BAB is caught up to a 3/4th BAB at a +6 (you'd be starting from +3 at L6, btw) and your casting progression is only one level behind the straight spontaneous caster.
(I would also assume that if you were planning on being an EK, you'd have the foresight to take Magical Knack or something similar to keep up your caster level. If your GM bans Magical Knack or equivalents, that's probably a hint you shouldn't multiclass. So caster level itself would remain even with character level.)
Dropping one spell progression level behind a straight spontaneous caster while catching your BAB up to a cleric is not a character crippling sacrifice.
Now I will agree that if your campaign is expected to end by 9 to 12, then you won't see any real payoff for going Eldritch Knight, so going Eldritch Knight in the first place would be a poor choice.
But if you're in, for example, an AP that's actually going to reach Books 5 and 6, you'll be fine.
I'll also agree that magus (which is a fun, fun class) is the vastly better choice if your campaign isn't going to make it past levels 9 to 12, since the EK's superior spellcasting won't come to bear. (The EK gets 5th level spells that the magus won't reach, but that's not amazing.)
It isn't that you're disagreeing with me, it's that you're telling me something I already posted in an earlier post as if it's new information.
Fergie quoted a part of my post:
-For the first 7 levels or so, you suck all around at everything you're trying to do. You're a pretty s#**ty combatant, and your spells suck too.
And neglected to quote the rest:
-After that and up to level 12-14, you sorta even out so you're middling good at combat and middling good at spells, making a middling sorta class. Better than a Fighter, worse than an Inquisitor overall.
-After level 15, most of the downsides of the class disappear, but at that point you're left wondering why you didn't just go straight Wizard since you've slogged through 14 levels of being all around worse at everything than a more specialized class could be. Spending 14 levels meh just so you can spend a few levels as a Wizard who can fight if he wants is just uninspired design-wise, and not really worth it playing-wise.
Which leads to the current scenario where you're telling me that after 7th you have effective 3/4 BaB and have recouped some of your casting loss, so it's not a crippling downside. Well, yes, duh, that's what I said.
You can see how that would get frustrating when 3 people are doing that simultaneously.
Disagree with my final judgement or the results all you want, just don't act like I don't understand what the progression looks like.
You either spend your whole career a level behind on everything you could be doing as a more specialized class until 8th, or you're stuck playing something entirely different until you finally get EK at 7th. Or somewhere in between.
It doesn't matter if you go Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK 1 or Wizard 5/Fighter 1/EK 1, or any other combo, you basically are playing a less effective Wizard or a less effective Fighter for several levels, only later do you end up being better than the sum of those parts, and MUCH later for it to IMO pay off properly.
No. A tougher wizard one spell level behind should be an appropriate fit for most adventuring parties because wizard is such a powerful class. I'm not a big fan of the tier system but it has some merit.
EK is less powerful than pure wizard. This is a GOOD thing.
EK should still be perfectly capable of meeting level-appropriate challenges in, say, PFS. I am not interested in theorycraft so I will try this out in the PFS core campaign and let you know how it actually goes in practice.
I do not care in the least about so-called "dead levels" or "class features." "+1 BAB AND +1 caster level" are all the class features I need for an EK, the bonus feats are just gravy. This silly emphasis on "class features" results in stuff like "Trap Sense +2" as filler. BAB and caster level are the real features for the EK.
I UNDERSTAND that EK is less powerful than straight wizard. It is not and has never been my goal playing any edition of this game to make the most powerful character possible. As long as he is capable of pulling his weight which I think (and will look to prove by actual experience) that the EK is. "Less powerful than full wizard" does not mean "garbage."
No, the fact that it casts spells less powerfully than any full caster AND has 0 abilities makes it garbage.
I don't fault people for not playing Wizards, and not wanting to play the Wizard because it's freakishly OP is understandable to me.
But Great Cthulhu is the EK just bad.
You want to play a versatile caster that's not as OP as the Wizard?
There's the Arcanist and the Sorcerer. Both are weaker than the Wizard, and yet DO so much more than the EK because they have actual ABILITIES.
The Cleric gets Domain abilities and Channels, though it is the top-tier of divine classes.
You want a mage-knight? Take your pick - Warpriest, Inquisitor, Magus, Alchemist, Invstigator, Skald, Hunter, Summoner... freakin' BARD.
I'm not saying you HAVE to play the best of the best, or even decent, but come ON - the EK is just absolutely AWFUL.
It's awful because it's mediocre in both martial AND magical talents AND has no abilities.
3/4 BAB, 6/9 Spellscasters all have tons of abilities that give them diverse skillsets and make them interesting.
Martials all get cool abilities, either in or out of combat.
The Wizard is pretty bland and boring, but is nothing but power.
Every other full-caster has spell versatility AND lots of abilities, so even if they're not as powerful as the Wizard, they're still flavorful.
Playing the EK because "I don't want to play an OP Wizard" is, frankly, a pretty sad excuse for not playing a Sorcerer, Witch, Arcanist, Magus, Bard, Skald, Bloodrager, Summoner, Alchemist, Investigator, Oracle, Shaman, Druid, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Hunter, Paladin, Ranger.
Long story short - congratulations, you're a hipster; you want to feel like a special, beautiful and unique snowflake, and you're playing something embarrassingly bland instead of playing more interesting classes because "it's too mainstream".
o it takes you 8 levels to catch up to a Magus in BaB, and to overtake him in spellcasting level. You spend the first 7 AS I SAID being both a s*$~ty caster and a s%++ty fighter.** spoiler omitted **
You are behind in BAB for levels 4, 6, 7, and 8.
At 9+ everything only goes well for the EK.Bruh that is literally exactly what I f*+~ing said, in the same post I said:
Reading comprehension is a good life skill.You're as bad as LazarX, quoting people and telling them they're wrong, and then "correcting" them by saying the exact same thing they just said.
No you said EK was behind for 8 levels. EK is behind for 4.
|
...and a Capstone ability that is so embarrassingly underwhelming that most other prestige classes would've had it as a level 3-5 ability.I won't disagree with the rest, but the capstone is incredible if you know what you are doing.
And what you are doing is Named Bullet.
That's not even a valid spell for their capstone. Named Bullet targets the ammo, the capstone requires that the spell include the foe being critically hit as one of the targets (or in the area of effect, as applicable).
Also, the capstone's existence conflicts with a core feat that, on its surface, seems practically designed for a gish: Arcane Strike. If you used Arcane Strike that round to get more damage, you can't use the capstone. Arcane Armor Training takes a swift action as well, meaning you can't combine armored casting with the capstone without using still spell.
All around, EK is messed up. It grants virtually no benefit compared to simply sticking with your main casting class the whole time, and the few feats designed for such "gish" approaches all conflict with each-other on action usage. What benefits it does provide are minimal and corner-cased at best. The two classes that would go EK that are in core (Wizard and Sorc) both get 2+ bonus feats for not going EK and get better abilities and capstones.
All this talk about EK and Magus early levels has me so confused. Has anyone played a Magus using no class features other than Spellcasting and weapon proficiencies up until level 9? Not that I have, but that sounds like an awful and shitty experience.
No you said EK was behind for 8 levels. EK is behind for 4.o it takes you 8 levels to catch up to a Magus in BaB, and to overtake him in spellcasting level. You spend the first 7 AS I SAID being both a s*$~ty caster and a s%++ty fighter.** spoiler omitted **
You are behind in BAB for levels 4, 6, 7, and 8.
At 9+ everything only goes well for the EK.Bruh that is literally exactly what I f*+~ing said, in the same post I said:
Reading comprehension is a good life skill.You're as bad as LazarX, quoting people and telling them they're wrong, and then "correcting" them by saying the exact same thing they just said.
In the best case scenario he is equal for 4, and then behind for 4.
I classify that as behind. If you're in a race with someone, it doesn't matter if you were neck and neck for 400 feet, since when he pulls ahead at 500 and stays that way until 800 you're still behind at that point, and have been for over half the race.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and a Capstone ability that is so embarrassingly underwhelming that most other prestige classes would've had it as a level 3-5 ability.I won't disagree with the rest, but the capstone is incredible if you know what you are doing.
And what you are doing is Named Bullet.
That's not even a valid spell for their capstone. Named Bullet targets the ammo, the capstone requires that the spell include the foe being critically hit as one of the targets (or in the area of effect, as applicable).
Also, the capstone's existence conflicts with a core feat that, on its surface, seems practically designed for a gish: Arcane Strike. If you used Arcane Strike that round to get more damage, you can't use the capstone. Arcane Armor Training takes a swift action as well, meaning you can't combine armored casting with the capstone without using still spell.
All around, EK is messed up. It grants virtually no benefit compared to simply sticking with your main casting class the whole time, and the few feats designed for such "gish" approaches all conflict with each-other on action usage. What benefits it does provide are minimal and corner-cased at best. The two classes that would go EK that are in core (Wizard and Sorc) both get 2+ bonus feats for not going EK and get better abilities and capstones.
Also, if you want to play a Not-Wizard - ta-da! The Arcanist!
Seriously, the Arcanist is a pretty damn cool class for people who don't like the Wizard (or, really, for anyone).
You get access to the same spell list as a Wizard and Sorc; you get a neat versatile way of casting that lets you prepare a set of spells each day like a wizard yet spam individual spells like a Sorcerer. Yet, it's a level behind the Wizard in progression, and fewer spells per day than a Sorcerer. All-in-all it's extremely balanced - versatility in planning, plenty of room for spontaneity, and yet reigned-in just enough to make it good but not THE BEST.
On top of being a full-caster, it's also got tons of abilities that make it really cool outside of just being a caster.
And that's just the BASE class - the Archetypes are all over the place in oddball coolness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SLAs found themself in the most dangerous place to be in the hobby...between developers and an opportunity to monetize character development.
Just kidding.
Or am I?
I don't think you understand how big a deal being 2 caster levels behind is.
Especially when for those first few levels (through 7th since without early entry you can't enter until 6th) you're 2 CL (an entire spell level, especially this specific spell level since 4th level spells are some of the best around) behind, but only 1 BaB ahead...which is still 1 behind a 3/4 BaB class, which already have low to hit without their special boosters, which you lack.
If I were writing a guide for optimizing the wizard, I would say that caster levels are king. No doubt. That is optimizing 101, and 102 as well.
But the thing is, as a EK, I start off the game great! I'm a martial with power attack and a two handed weapon! YEEE HAW! At second level, I still kick ass because I'm power attacking away and my will save is even improved! I probably still wear armor, but I have some wizard school SLAs that still function. What do you know, true strike even still functions in armor! So do wands! Pretty soon, I'm power attacking while mirror imaged, and I have a pile of scrolls for weird situations. I have a bonded item, or a familiar who boosts a save or some other cool effect. Around 5th level I'm just one caster level behind, but still able to function perfectly well as a fighter, or caster. I could even pick up point blank shot and another ranged feat or two. Level 7 or 8, yeah a little bit of a bummer to be 2 CL back, but I'm one tough wizard, and HOLY CRAP I have craft wondrous item (as a bonus feat!) and a whooping spellcraft! But wait, even if I don't craft, make an attack roll or fortitude save, I'M STILL ABLE TO BEAT APL+2 encounters fairly easily! I haven't been sucking or paying dues, I've been able to hit above my APL THE WHOLE TIME!
If being a wizard was hard or frustrating, you would have some great points, but it is just the opposite. If you can function well enough as a wizard 5 commoner 2, being a F1/W5/EK1 is perfectly serviceable. Is it better then a melee bard, or melee cleric? Probably not in many ways, but definitely better in some. That means it is an acceptable character build.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
people complaining that they can't build a decent character says more about their understanding then it says about the rules and game balance.
I'm not going to be so fast to ascribe lack of understanding to people like Jiggy, who said that he'd actually played, and struggled with the EK - there is a certain built up respect towards his understanding of the rules that informs my attitude here.
Around 5th level I'm just one caster level behind, but still able to function perfectly well as a fighter, or caster.
Looking at a fighter 5 vs a fighter 1/wizard 4, I don't think the multiclass is able to 'function perfectly well' in fighting especially when you're looking at a power attacking situation.
Second, you are ignoring that you have to move stats around to make a fighter/wizard work. To have a strength high enough to get even close to keeping up with the normal fighter, you have to lose something. Dex, int, con, something and it's going to come back and kick you in the butt when you switch over to be a wizard. Lower dex and AC suffers for fighting. Lower Int and casting suffers, Con is bad for fighting all together, and You have to have strength to hit and damage especially with power attacking.
being a F1/W5/EK1 is perfectly serviceable.
Being a warrior or adept is "perfectly serviceable" but why hobble yourself compared to a PC class?
EK is basically nothing BUT Empty Levels.
So, it sounds like you're saying that it's a bad class.
In that case, why play it?
Why does early entry even matter, is getting nothing at low levels better than getting nothing at mid levels?
If it's the concept, why not play one of the functional, class ability having equivalents?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm really baffled. I can't figure out why someone would be so ardent about playing a class that they think is bad a couple levels earlier.
people complaining that they can't build a decent character says more about their understanding then it says about the rules and game balance.I'm not going to be so fast to ascribe lack of understanding to people like Jiggy, who said that he'd actually played, and struggled with the EK - there is a certain built up respect towards his understanding of the rules that informs my attitude here.
Please point me to where Jiggy said that an EK is not a functional character?
Around 5th level I'm just one caster level behind, but still able to function perfectly well as a fighter, or caster.Looking at a fighter 5 vs a fighter 1/wizard 4, I don't think the multiclass is able to 'function perfectly well' in fighting especially when you're looking at a power attacking situation.
Second, you are ignoring that you have to move stats around to make a fighter/wizard work. To have a strength high enough to get even close to keeping up with the normal fighter, you have to lose something. Dex, int, con, something and it's going to come back and kick you in the butt when you switch over to be a wizard. Lower dex and AC suffers for fighting. Lower Int and casting suffers, Con is bad for fighting all together, and You have to have strength to hit and damage especially with power attacking.
being a F1/W5/EK1 is perfectly serviceable.Being a warrior or adept is "perfectly serviceable" but why hobble yourself compared to a PC class?
If you want to compare a fighter in platemail swinging away to an EK with mirror image and perhaps a bulls strength, you will not find that much difference. THE PURE FIGHTER IS BETTER AT FIGHTING. The EK is fully able to contribute his share to the success of the party in a fight.
I'm not ignoring ability scores, I happily bypassing the need for them. I care less about Dex because I have mirror image and half a dozen other buffs that prevent damage. I care less about Con because I have false life, and ways to get temp HP. I care less about Strength because I have bulls strength, true strike, etc. etc. Walking around and in the first round of combat, I'm weaker then the fighter. With a round or two of buffing, I can do most things well better then him. I'm worse then the wizard as well, but I don't care because I don't need to be as good as a wizard, (even one a level or two behind) to hit above my APL.
In what universe does True Strike replace Str investment, especially at low levels?
Plus with a lower caster level you won't have False Life, Mirror Image, Bull's Strength, and half a dozen other buffs up, with slots left over to cast True Strike and whatnot when you need to anyway, so that point is way off from the get-go.
Please point me to where Jiggy said that an EK is not a functional character?people complaining that they can't build a decent character says more about their understanding then it says about the rules and game balance.I'm not going to be so fast to ascribe lack of understanding to people like Jiggy, who said that he'd actually played, and struggled with the EK - there is a certain built up respect towards his understanding of the rules that informs my attitude here.
Functioning is, in my opinion, definitely a spectrum and not a yes/no condition, so I'd prefer to keep the goalposts "decent" and "struggled with." If I believe that every possible character right down to a commoner falls on a spectrum from most to least functional, I can't very well locate an EK off that spectrum completely.
However, writing stuff like
If I had a string of good rolls, I could feel relevant. The rest of the time... not so much.
seems, "functional" aside, to hit "struggled with" and miss "decent."
And I'd need some quite formidable evidence before I ascribed that to lack of rules understanding on his part.
If you want to compare a fighter in platemail swinging away to an EK with mirror image and perhaps a bulls strength, you will not find that much difference. THE PURE FIGHTER IS BETTER AT FIGHTING. The EK is fully able to contribute his share to the success of the party in a fight.
If you're using all your spells to get kind of close to a fighter then you aren't being a fighter sometimes and a wizard other times. You just using resourses to get close to normal...
I'm not ignoring ability scores, I happily bypassing the need for them. I care less about Dex because I have mirror image and half a dozen other buffs that prevent damage. I care less about Con because I have false life, and ways to get temp HP. I care less about Strength because I have bulls strength, true strike, etc. etc. Walking around and in the first round of combat, I'm weaker then the fighter. With a round or two of buffing, I can do most things well better then him. I'm worse then the wizard as well, but I don't care because I don't need to be as good as a wizard, (even one a level or two behind) to hit above my APL.
So your fighter 1/wizard 4 is casting mirror image, false life, bulls strength, true strike, etc, every fight to keep up? Ok, so you only plan on one fight a day or something? Blowing all your spells to be ok for a single fight doesn't seem "perfectly serviceable" to me.
In what universe does True Strike replace Str investment, especially at low levels?
I never made that claim. I would invest in strength in any character who was going to melee. But I don't need an 18 or 20 strength to kick ass at low levels. If I swing a glaive, greatsword or whatever, and power attack, I'm going to do great for the first several levels of the game. If I do need more strength, I just cast bulls strength, and there is my 18 or 20. While the fighter tops out there, I have the option of casting true strike a couple of times (12.5 gp a scroll) so I can power attack the guy in full plate with cover, and I'm essentially guaranteed to hit.
EDIT: I don't need all those buffs to keep up. I keep up well enough with a two handed martial and power attack. Once I start casting mirror image I'm a much better tank then almost any martial in most situations. IF, and I say IF here, I need more power, I have the option to get it. Most of the time I do great without it. Once my martial skills do start to fall behind to the point where I might struggle, I laugh and laugh, because I'M A WIZARD. If it is too tough to fight, I just end the encounter with a save or suck spell. BECAUSE I'M mostly THE MOST POWERFUL CLASS IN THE GAME!
Can't in PFS.Good to know a lot viable of concepts are garbage again.*shrug* Don't like it, keep using the old ruling.
I... you know, honestly, I've never even played in a PFS game, and I don't see the pull why I should want to.
In what universe does True Strike replace Str investment, especially at low levels?I never made that claim. I would invest in strength in any character who was going to melee. But I don't need an 18 or 20 strength to kick ass at low levels. If I swing a glaive, greatsword or whatever, and power attack, I'm going to do great for the first several levels of the game. If I do need more strength, I just cast bulls strength, and there is my 18 or 20. While the fighter tops out there, I have the option of casting true strike a couple of times (12.5 gp a scroll) so I can power attack the guy in full plate with cover, and I'm essentially guaranteed to hit.
So the EK can hit if it spends money and takes an extra round to hit? Good to know. That sounds totally better that having actual stats or abilities... :P
So the EK can hit if it spends money and takes an extra round to hit? Good to know. That sounds totally better that having actual stats or abilities... :PIn what universe does True Strike replace Str investment, especially at low levels?I never made that claim. I would invest in strength in any character who was going to melee. But I don't need an 18 or 20 strength to kick ass at low levels. If I swing a glaive, greatsword or whatever, and power attack, I'm going to do great for the first several levels of the game. If I do need more strength, I just cast bulls strength, and there is my 18 or 20. While the fighter tops out there, I have the option of casting true strike a couple of times (12.5 gp a scroll) so I can power attack the guy in full plate with cover, and I'm essentially guaranteed to hit.
No. The EK can hit because it is EASY to hit most CR 1/4 - 4 monsters. Even if you are power attacking.
Honestly, if you think hitting things at low level is difficult, you need to spend some time checking the charts in the back of the Bestiary.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html
20 doesn't become the average AC until CR 7! With true strike I can essentially auto hit most CR 11 opponents, while power attacking, at level 3.
And I'd need some quite formidable evidence before I ascribed that to lack of rules understanding on his part.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rzwh&page=7?SLA-FAQ-Reversal#326
I would say that if your goal is to create a "magical swordsman" EK would not be your best option. I would also say, that if you like being a wizard, but would like to be a lot better at attacking things, a EK is pretty decent. Much less powerful then a straight wizard, but still a competent character.
PS If you want to struggle as an EK, I played one toward the tail end of 3.5 (core only) until about 15th level. THAT was painful!
So the EK can hit if it spends money and takes an extra round to hit? Good to know. That sounds totally better that having actual stats or abilities... :PIn what universe does True Strike replace Str investment, especially at low levels?I never made that claim. I would invest in strength in any character who was going to melee. But I don't need an 18 or 20 strength to kick ass at low levels. If I swing a glaive, greatsword or whatever, and power attack, I'm going to do great for the first several levels of the game. If I do need more strength, I just cast bulls strength, and there is my 18 or 20. While the fighter tops out there, I have the option of casting true strike a couple of times (12.5 gp a scroll) so I can power attack the guy in full plate with cover, and I'm essentially guaranteed to hit.No. The EK can hit because it is EASY to hit most CR 1/4 - 4 monsters. Even if you are power attacking.
Honestly, if you think hitting things at low level is difficult, you need to spend some time checking the charts in the back of the Bestiary.
we've been talking about 5th level so lets look there. easy (cr-1) to epic (cr+3). SO maybe you'd want to look at cr 1/4 - cr 8 instead because that's the range. The first level or two, sure you can get away without stats or abilities but that quickly goes away... If your point is that an EK can mop up mooks like nothing, my response is 'good for you I guess...'.
Also, I can hit everything by spending cash and a round to do so is the opposite of impressive. That's 1/2 the attacks of a normal 'fighter' and 1/4 that of a two weapon one. If you're betting on low AC's then that makes it even worse as those with actual stats/abilities rack up the hits vs you with-spend cash=scroll=Action(remove hand from weapon)=Action(pull out scroll)=action(read scroll)=action(put hand back on weapon)=wait till next round=attack...
So to break it down for you, if all you have is the ability to waste time, cash and effort on true strike scrolls, I'm not impressed by the EK's fighting at any level past the first few. To put it in perspective, that is the same ability that a 1/2 elf can pick up on a FULL STRAIGHT CLASS FIGHTER. Arcane Training trait.