| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff about Jiggy
Well, it's a bit pointless to further debate about what he meant, it's not like his posts are ancient holy texts written by the dead. I certainly didn't interpret him as claiming that EK is a decent class - you seem to think that he did claim that it is a decent class. I'm sure that if he meant the latter he's capable of appearing to correct me.
I will say that I certainly got the impression he believes it to be a bad class - and that I'm a bit mystified where you're getting the alternate interpretation, looking back on the posts - and that I trust his judgment on mechanical issues more than any old poster. If I'm horribly wrong about any of these three things, my turn to eat crow, I suppose. Bedtime for me, anyway.
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.
I think you're getting a miscommunication - I'm not saying the class is bad but you should play the class.
I'm saying EK is godforsakenly awful from level 1, no matter how low-character-level it's taken, and there are multiple better options for playing a mage-knight. Even the least-optimal of these other options is still leagues better than an EK. EK should be AVOIDED like the Super-Plague.
A Treatise on goblin mating rituals in the CRB would have been a better use of page-space than the EK.
Theurge I can understand people liking, and even think is a damn nice class BECAUSE it is much closer to a true Gestalt class (giving 20 levels worth of spellcasting over time), and I think the THEURGE is a fantastic class for NPC villains for high-level campaigns BECAUSE its ability to effectively add extra levels of spellcasting progression is crazy.
ARCANE TRICKSTER is a fantastic prestige class idea that really deserves a 20-level base class equivalent.
EK is neither of these - it's completely empty levels a full 20% of the time, and the levels where it does grant things are piddling Bonus Combat Feats for 3 of those levels (and far enough apart to not matter a ton), followed by an underpowered Capstone ability that doesn't warrant taking the class up until 10th level.
I'M pointing out that saying the removal of the SLA exploit destroyed "playability" of the EK is a fallacy - the class was awful even WITH the exploit present, and complaining about it now being "unplayable" is like complaining that the tune-up in your car got rid of the "wonderful drum-solo" that was the clanking of your engine cylinders.
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.There's no reason you should. Not every game is for every player.
PFS definitely has its merits, but two of the major downsides of it are a generally-obsessive observance of RAW, and its playerbases' empthasis on combat optimization. One of the major reasons for this is the Living World nature of PFS, which dictates a strict and universal adherence to rulings in order to be able to play at any PFS table anywhere, without the DMs having to review everything; the other is that the Modules used, like many campaigns, are designed around combat encounters, or at least they feature prominently (admittedly, it IS hard to separate Action-Adventure from fight scenes, so it's kind of a genre-original-sin in that regard).
The biggest merit is that you can take your character from any PFS table in, say, Hoboken, walk into a store in Salt Lake City, sit down with the same character, and keep on playing without issue. Oddly enough, it's also one of its bigger weaknesses, as stated above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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!
This line alone pretty much proves to me you don't have strong experience with building DPS-based casters. Save-or-suck spells are some of the best spells in the game - but they require investment in the form of DCs, spell levels and metamagic. Just like a battle cleric, an optimised EK will never be casting save or suck spells due to low DCs making them pretty much worthless.
Some math craft: at 8th level, an optimised EK has an INT of 17 and access to 3rd level spells. A standard SoS wizard at this point has an INT of 26, access to 4th level spells, spell focus x2. The DC an EK can put out is 16. The DC a SoS wizard can put out is 24.
A CR 8 encounter (which should be an easy fight) is likely to have a +11 on a good save and a +7 on a bad save. The monster only needs a 5+ to beat the EK with a good save and a 9+ on a bad save. These are not good odds. Against the SoS wizard the monster needs a 13+ on a good save and a 17+ on a bad save - actually still not fantastic on the good save but pretty much sure fire on the bad save. The wizard could also use persistent metamagic on a 2nd level spell to make those odds a lot better. Even if he wastes build resources on persistent, the EK can only do this trick with 1st level spells and his odds are STILL worse than the wizard. On top of all this, the 4th level SoS is going to have better variables attached compared to a 3rd level SoS.
Of course, the EK can recover a lot of this by investing in INT boosting items, spell focus, metamagic...... but these are build resources which do not help him in his primary role as a frontline damage dealer. If he invests to be capable of hitting SoS DCs instead of fighting, he just becomes a s*&&ty wizard.
*edit*
It's worth mentioning that I partially agree: an EK is not an unplayable class.... but it is definitely a bad prestige class. It single-handedly makes the wizard worse than a magus, which is a tier 3 class. EK is low tier 3 pushing tier 4. A prestige class that drops the original modified class by 2-3 tiers is almost by definition an awful prestige class.
The fact that the EK is still better than other tier 4 + 5 classes isn't a big selling point. These classes are bad classes. What is more, the EK mostly fails to achieve the one thing some bad classes like the fighter actually do OK (DPS). Considering that is the whole point of the prestige class it is pretty easy to see why it is considered such trash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest merit is that you can take your character from any PFS table in, say, Hoboken, walk into a store in Salt Lake City, sit down with the same character, and keep on playing without issue.
Can confirm, this is a major benefit. I am moving across the country in a few short months, and I'm very happy to be able to continue playing in the "same" campaign regardless of my shift of coast.
I will still be pleased to find home games in my area, but PFS guarantees that I can play the game that I enjoy no matter where I go.
I'M pointing out that saying the removal of the SLA exploit destroyed "playability" of the EK is a fallacy - the class was awful even WITH the exploit present, and complaining about it now being "unplayable" is like complaining that the tune-up in your car got rid of the "wonderful drum-solo" that was the clanking of your engine cylinders.
You're right, I misunderstood. I think after reading so many pages, the posts were becoming indistinct to me. Sorry.
Good call.
Some math craft: at 8th level, an optimised EK has an INT of 17 and access to 3rd level spells. A standard SoS wizard at this point has an INT of 26, access to 4th level spells, spell focus x2. The DC an EK can put out is 16. The DC a SoS wizard can put out is 24.
yes, this was part of what I was trying to point out with an EK needing to spread out their stats. Str for hit/damage. Dex for AC/hit. Con to not die. Int for spells/save. Wis at least even for saves. Only CHA can be dropped.
Then feats are either combat or casting, meaning your not up to snuff on either side. Items need split between casting and fighting meaning about 1/2 as good.
I think you're getting a miscommunication - I'm not saying the class is bad but you should play the class.I'm saying EK is godforsakenly awful from level 1, no matter how low-character-level it's taken, and there are multiple better options for playing a mage-knight. Even the least-optimal of these other options is still leagues better than an EK. EK should be AVOIDED like the Super-Plague.
A Treatise on goblin mating rituals in the CRB would have been a better use of page-space than the EK.
Theurge I can understand people liking, and even think is a damn nice class BECAUSE it is much closer to a true Gestalt class (giving 20 levels worth of spellcasting over time), and I think the THEURGE is a fantastic class for NPC villains for high-level campaigns BECAUSE its ability to effectively add extra levels of spellcasting progression is crazy.
ARCANE TRICKSTER is a fantastic prestige class idea that really deserves a 20-level base class equivalent.
EK is neither of these - it's completely empty levels a full 20% of the time, and the levels where it does grant things are piddling Bonus Combat Feats for 3 of those levels (and far enough apart to not matter a ton), followed by an underpowered Capstone ability that doesn't warrant taking the class up until 10th level.
I'M pointing out that saying the removal of the SLA exploit destroyed "playability" of the EK is a fallacy - the class was awful even WITH the exploit present,...
You are nearly right. Nearly.
I have seen one build where the EK is actually good, for the white haired witch.
There you are trying to turn a witch into a melee monster, and you can do a bunch of things you can't do as anything else.
And EK is the one way available to get the BaB and HPs to make the concept work.
The biggest merit is that you can take your character from any PFS table in, say, Hoboken, walk into a store in Salt Lake City, sit down with the same character, and keep on playing without issue.Can confirm, this is a major benefit. I am moving across the country in a few short months, and I'm very happy to be able to continue playing in the "same" campaign regardless of my shift of coast.
I will still be pleased to find home games in my area, but PFS guarantees that I can play the game that I enjoy no matter where I go.
The PFS is also a good way of meeting people in your new location after a move.
You are nearly right. Nearly.
I have seen one build where the EK is actually good, for the white haired witch.
There you are trying to turn a witch into a melee monster, and you can do a bunch of things you can't do as anything else.
And EK is the one way available to get the BaB and HPs to make the concept work.
I'll take your word for it, but I always assumed the White Haired Witch was supposed to be more of a Reach character.
Then again, that's not a PRD archetype, so the most I've seen of it is reading about it on d20pfsrd, so I've never seen anyone play it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we seem to have moved to talking about Eldritch Knight, I'll say that it did have a few niches, the first of which can still be useful even after the new SLA FAQ nerf, because it didn't depend upon it in the first place.
1. Orc (could be Half-Orc, but not as good) Martial 1 + Scarred Witch Doctor 6 into Eldritch Knight. You actually want the Scarred Witch Doctor levels before **non-early** entry to get the Hexes you want; entering 1 level **later** than the earliest possible actually gets you another Hex and +1 on your Scarshield (scaling natural armor bonus, which replaces the 1st level Hex, by the way). With Orc +4 to Strength before point buy, you're going to be able to overcome being temporarily effectively 5/8 BAB, and make it really hurt when you hit. With Constitution being pumped to make you both more effective at spellcasting and better able to take hits in combat, you aren't going to need to be carried, even in the part of your career where you are both behind on spellcasting levels and effectively 5/8 BAB. (And your effective BAB climbs thereafter for the next 10 levels.)
2. Reach Eldritch Knight (scroll down to "Third Character" about halfway through the post, and then read the next couple of posts for debugging). This would be the arcane equivalent of a Reach Cleric (link to guide). Oddly enough, Cleric is a class that has a lot of dead levels, although they don't come in stretches of 3 at a time like in the Eldritch Knight progression -- boring, but powerful. Reach Eldritch Knight is a build severely crippled by the new SLA FAQ -- it really needed the early entry to be good, although if you had a high enough point buy to be able to pump Dexterity as much as you need while still pumping Strength and Constitution through the roof, you could still pull it off by hybridizing with niche #1 above.
2a. The post linked above also has a Ranged Sorcadin version (using the Snap Shot feat chain in place of a reach weapon to get AoOs at distance) that I didn't flesh out or debug as much. This really needed early entry to work at all, because even with early entry it would still take a long time to get online.
3. The White-Haired Witch gish build that somebody(*) mentioned above. Unfortunately, you can't combine it with Scarred Witch Doctor, because the archetypes clash (both replace level 1 Hex), so I'm going to stick my neck out and guess that the new SLA FAQ hoses it as well unless you have a really high point buy AND a campaign that runs all the way into high levels.
(*)Due to broken quoteblocks, not sure exactly who.
Having said all that, Eldritch Knight would probably best be retired, and replaced by a Magus archetype specialized to do #2 above (and for #2a above, a Myrmidarch archetype that isn't crippled), and the Eldritch Knight capstone (Spell Critical) replaced by a feat (also see posts below linked one for debugging).
1. Orc (could be Half-Orc, but not as good) Martial 1 + Scarred Witch Doctor 6 into Eldritch Knight. You actually want the Scarred Witch Doctor levels before **non-early** entry to get the Hexes you want; entering 1 level **later** than the earliest possible actually gets you another Hex and +1 on your Scarshield (scaling natural armor bonus, which replaces the 1st level Hex, by the way). With Orc +4 to Strength before point buy, you're going to be able to overcome being temporarily effectively 5/8 BAB, and make it really hurt when you hit. With Constitution being pumped to make you both more effective at spellcasting and better able to take hits in combat, you aren't going to need to be carried, even in the part of your career where you are both behind on spellcasting levels and effectively 5/8 BAB. (And your effective BAB climbs thereafter for the next 10 levels.)
This could be sort of ok. It cuts down on stats needed dramatically, and can cut down of buff items by getting items that increase str and con like a Belt of Physical Might. You can always pick up more hexes with feats if you want. Then you can use your Healing hex + hex vulnerability to max out of combat healing.
You sir have come across an EK that I might think about playing. Maybe add a wizard hook...
By the way, why do all prestige classes have to have requirements that delay their entry to at least level 5 anyway? Seems it should be possible to tailor-make prestige classes that are balanced fine with lower level entry requirements (even down to something achievable at 2nd level). This is already partly done with prestige classes (such as Stalwart Defender) that have later entry requirements. Some older prestige classes also had less than 10 levels. If the set of prestige classes had more variety (NOT sheer numbers like it has) in this regard, then you would be able to find prestige classes suitable for more types of campaigns: short prestige classes with low entry requirements for campaigns that never get out of the low levels (although long prestige classes with low entry requirements that get some of their cool stuff online early could work also), and long prestige classes and those with high entry requirements for long campaigns.
Maybe this is not the best place to bring this up, but I am wanting to make a house-rule to just give that early entry to everybody instead of specific races. I have wanted to do this pretty much ever since magus came out and I never saw another eldritch knight ever again. With ACG out now, I especially want to make a house-rule to make the old "hybrid" style PrC's viable compared to new hybrid classes.
My question is, what would be a good way to word such a house-rule, to make it formal for my games? And what balance issues should I be wary of in attempting such a thing?
Basically my thinking is that going straight into EK didn't turn out to be ZOMG broken for aasimar it should be ok for anyone else too.
Maybe this is not the best place to bring this up, but I am wanting to make a house-rule to just give that early entry to everybody instead of specific races. I have wanted to do this pretty much ever since magus came out and I never saw another eldritch knight ever again. With ACG out now, I especially want to make a house-rule to make the old "hybrid" style PrC's viable compared to new hybrid classes.
My question is, what would be a good way to word such a house-rule, to make it formal for my games? And what balance issues should I be wary of in attempting such a thing?
Basically my thinking is that going straight into EK didn't turn out to be ZOMG broken for aasimar it should be ok for anyone else too.
The easy thing to do would be replacing "cast x-level arcane spells" with 'cast arcane spells'. Easy peasy.
By the way, why do all prestige classes have to have requirements that delay their entry to at least level 5 anyway? Seems it should be possible to tailor-make prestige classes that are balanced fine with lower level entry requirements (even down to something achievable at 2nd level). This is already partly done with prestige classes (such as Stalwart Defender) that have later entry requirements. Some older prestige classes also had less than 10 levels. If the set of prestige classes had more variety (NOT sheer numbers like it has) in this regard, then you would be able to find prestige classes suitable for more types of campaigns: short prestige classes with low entry requirements for campaigns that never get out of the low levels (although long prestige classes with low entry requirements that get some of their cool stuff online early could work also), and long prestige classes and those with high entry requirements for long campaigns.
Flavor-wise, traditionally level 5 is the top end of "mook" level beings in d20.
Assume that most mortals are somewhere between levels 1-5, with the average being lv3, and lv5 being "competent".
Since level 6 was the first level you could take Leadership in 3.5, and level 7 now in Pathfinder, that's generally when a character can become truly "special".
Since lv6-7 is the marker for when characters start becoming "special", it makes sense that that'd be when Prestige Classes, which are themselves flavored as "special" routes, would first be accessible.
The difference is that several of the 3.5 legacy Prestige Classes are a mish-moshed attempt at creating a unifying build for multiclassers (the same way the Bard was handled way back when) but went horribly wrong by basically abandoning the original classes' abilities entirely, and presented abilities that were better utilized as base classes in their own right (see the Arcane Archer and Trickster for prime examples thereof).
By comparison, the APG prestige classes, and even those in Paths of Prestige fit the "special route" idea much better, stay with the "no empty levels" that base classes were given, and seem to be broken into three groups:
First, Prestige Classes that represent a melding of two classes together under a unifying theme while progressing the base class' components equally.
Second, Prestige Classes that represent focus on a specific talent or strategy, regardless of class.
The Third, Prestige Classes that are a combination of the two above - classes that can be accessed by a single class alone, yet focus on a specific talent of that class.
The first group work off of the original class' progressions which define the prestige class - the Battle Herald continues to progress both Inspire Courage and Tactician; the Rage Prophet progresses rounds of Rage, Curses (by design of how Curses work), and the Oracles' spellcasting; the Mystic Theurge is really the prototype for this, since while it doesn't advance class abilities, it DOES meld together their spellcasting advancement, in time giving them much more spellcasting potential than a character several levels higher than them
The second group are more like the 3.5 prestige classes, but without requiring specific class abilities or levels to be taken; instead, they require only certain feats be taken, and certain ranks in skills, and thus the classes' progression is based upon the idea that these feats and skills are the basis of the characters' strategy, so its abilities exemplify that - Master Spy, for instance, can be taken by Fighter and Wizard alike, and its abilities are all about being a spy and working off its skills; Stalwart Defender seems custom-made for an Unbreakable Fighter, but even a Sorcerer could take it eventually, since it only requires Dodge, Endurance, Toughness, and a +7 BAB; Horizon Walker just needs 6 ranks in K (Geography) and Endurance, so, again, anyone can enter it; Pathfinder Chronicler was the prototype for this class, since literally anyone could become a Chronicler, though Bards were the most predisposed to it by their nature.
The third group take one aspect of a single class, or even several classes that share an ability, and focus that aspect to extremes - Master Chymist can be accessed by a pure Alchemist or Investigator alone, focusing on the Mutation aspect of those classes, and go total Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde on opponents; Nature Warden takes the companion of the Ranger, Druid, or Paladin, and turns that into the focus of the class, while also increasing spellcasting potential; Holy Vindicator takes the Cleric, Paladin, or Warpriest, and turns them into blood-spewing super-saints; the Dragon Disciple was retrofitted to not just grant spells, but also advance a players' Bloodline, meaning a Sorcerer alone could enter into it, thus being the prototype for this manner of prestige class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe this is not the best place to bring this up, but I am wanting to make a house-rule to just give that early entry to everybody instead of specific races. I have wanted to do this pretty much ever since magus came out and I never saw another eldritch knight ever again. With ACG out now, I especially want to make a house-rule to make the old "hybrid" style PrC's viable compared to new hybrid classes.
My question is, what would be a good way to word such a house-rule, to make it formal for my games? And what balance issues should I be wary of in attempting such a thing?
Basically my thinking is that going straight into EK didn't turn out to be ZOMG broken for aasimar it should be ok for anyone else too.
Honestly, EK is so jank I'd just not bother. You could honestly make it a 3rd level entry, and it's still pretty bad.
The real ones that suck are the Mystic Theurge and Arcane Trickster.
For the Theurge, I'd say "Arcane Caster Level 2, Divine Caster Level 2, K (Arcana) 2 Ranks, K (Religion) 2 Ranks" It being a lv5 entry is plenty balanced enough, frankly.
For the Trickster, go with "Sneak Attack +1d6, able to cast Mage Hand and one other 1st level Arcane spell, Disable Device 2 ranks, Escape Artist 2 Ranks, K (Arcana) 2 ranks"
You could even up the ranks to 4 each for the Trickster, if you wanted to keep it at lv5 entry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flavor-wise, traditionally level 5 is the top end of "mook" level beings in d20.
Assume that most mortals are somewhere between levels 1-5, with the average being lv3, and lv5 being "competent".
Since level 6 was the first level you could take Leadership in 3.5, and level 7 now in Pathfinder, that's generally when a character can become truly "special".
Since lv6-7 is the marker for when characters start becoming "special", it makes sense that that'd be when Prestige Classes, which are themselves flavored as "special" routes, would first be accessible.
{. . .}
Seems that this would be highly dependent not only upon campaign setting, but also upon region and even organization within campaign setting, and thereby highly campaign-specific. One size does not fit all.
The first group work off of the original class' progressions which define the prestige class - the Battle Herald continues to progress both Inspire Courage and Tactician; the Rage Prophet progresses rounds of Rage, Curses (by design of how Curses work), and the Oracles' spellcasting {. . .}
Bug: While Rage Prophet progresses Rage Powers, it does not progress rounds of Rage -- this is notably missing from the Savage Seer class ability, and you have to use Enduring Rage later by burning spell slots to extend Rage. This problem has been noted in at least one guide. If not for this, it would actually be a pretty good prestige class.
^No, Rage Prophet progresses Oracle Revelations (existing ones, not new ones), Oracle's Curse (at full speed), spellcasting (3/4 speed), and Rage Powers (Barbarian 1/Oracle 19 doesn't get this), and gives you a few other things that Barbarian 1/Oracle 19 doesn't get (including the ability to heal yourself and eventually buff yourself while in Rage). But the major bug is no progression of rounds of Rage (and a lesser bug is no additional Oracle Revelations).
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that if your goal is to create a "magical swordsman" EK would not be your best option.
Which is part of the problem. When someone's looking through the CRB, trying to find a way to play their magical swordsman concept, the EK is there screaming "Pick me! Pick me!"
And then delivers the worst magical swordsman in the game.This is bad.
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.
Wrong, and here's why:
"A lot better at attacking things" is not really a thing until it's at least on par with classes that attack things.Or to put it another way, if the thing you're better than is so bad that you can be better than them while still sucking, then it's not a true benefit.
Being "better at attacking than a wizard" is like being less fat than Jabba the Hut or being smarter than Simple Simon or having a bigger nose than Voldemort. Technically an improvement, but doesn't mean you're not still a fat, flat-faced idiot.
So yeah, an EK is (for most, but not all, of his career) "better at attacking than a wizard", but he's still bad at attacking!
And just to be clear, by "bad at attacking", I don't mean "not on par with full-BAB classes", I mean not even on par with 3/4 BAB classes. You know, the classes that are designed to be worse at attacking things than fighters? That's who the EK spends most of his career trailing behind.
You know, the classes that are designed to be worse at attacking things than fighters?
Odd, because as far as I can tell, most of them are BETTER at attacking things than the fighter.
I would say that if your goal is to create a "magical swordsman" EK would not be your best option.Which is part of the problem. When someone's looking through the CRB, trying to find a way to play their magical swordsman concept, the EK is there screaming "Pick me! Pick me!"
And then delivers the worst magical swordsman in the game.
This is bad.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.Wrong, and here's why:
more...
And just to be clear, by "bad at attacking", I don't mean "not on par with full-BAB classes", I mean not even on par with 3/4 BAB classes. You know, the classes that are designed to be worse at attacking things than fighters? That's who the EK spends most of his career trailing behind.
I don't know. I came up with some numbers years ago, and they seem to put bards, clerics and EK's fairly equal.
I feel that battle clerics and bards are fully capable of pulling their own weight, and then some. Given that EK's are very close to these classes, (although perhaps the worst at fighting at some points) I think they are a viable character in normal play. It probably could use improvement, and is probably not for inexperienced players, but most fight/cast options require some system mastery.I really don't care what classes are 'best' at something, especially when people start using optimized wizards as their base. Many people have made claims that the EK is garbage, or worthless, or whatever, but nothing has shown the class unable to function at its APL.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know. I came up with some numbers years ago, and they seem to put bards, clerics and EK's fairly equal.I would say that if your goal is to create a "magical swordsman" EK would not be your best option.Which is part of the problem. When someone's looking through the CRB, trying to find a way to play their magical swordsman concept, the EK is there screaming "Pick me! Pick me!"
And then delivers the worst magical swordsman in the game.
This is bad.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.Wrong, and here's why:
more...
And just to be clear, by "bad at attacking", I don't mean "not on par with full-BAB classes", I mean not even on par with 3/4 BAB classes. You know, the classes that are designed to be worse at attacking things than fighters? That's who the EK spends most of his career trailing behind.
Your numbers are exclusively at 9th level. That's more than halfway through most PCs' careers, and therefore can't be taken as a representation of how the character plays out. Single-level snapshots are often misleading.
On their way up to 9th level, the bard and cleric in your examples would have maintained 3/4 BAB the entire time, while the EK build dips as far down as 1/2 BAB. Outside of levels 1, 2, and 5, the EK has lower BAB than bard or cleric until... you guessed it, 9th level, where you made your comparison.
Also, the bard and cleric have had access to their buffs (Inspire Courage and divine favor) from level 1. So even at the levels where EK has the equivalent of 3/4 BAB, the cleric and bard have the ability to buff while the EK doesn't get to buff until 6th level.
But of course, you only looked at 9th level, after the EK finally got to join the buffing club, five levels later than everyone else.
And then even at 9th level, you just assume everyone has equal access to the buffs that your comparison depends on. You assume that the 9th-level EK has heroism running, but he's only got three spell slots of that level (and that's after accounting for INT). You really think that's the same level of reliability as Inspire Courage, or the cleric's 1st-level divine favor, or even the bard's 5/day on-demand version of heroism?
And then even with all those flaws in your comparison, you still misrepresented the (already skewed) data that you gathered: you said the three builds' buffs all "averaged" to +3/+3, but didn't post the individual totals, which show that the cleric is +3/+3, while the bard is +4/+4 and the EK is +2/+2.
That's right, even in a scenario that was skewed heavily in favor of the EK, you still found data showing that the EK is the weakest, then declared that they were all about the same.
I don't think "waiting 9 levels to finally get UP to the point of being at -2/-2 behind the bard" is a reasonable definition of "about the same".
I feel that battle clerics and bards are fully capable of pulling their own weight, and then some.
They sure are! That's why I've been comparing to them. The next character I played after my EK was my battle cleric, and I could feel the difference very strongly.
I really don't care what classes are 'best' at something,
Nobody is asking for "best". We're talking about "in the same ballpark". And the EK isn't in the same ballpark as other "fight/cast options" until you get to 9th-level or higher, and even then he has to spend more daily resources to do so.
especially when people start using optimized wizards as their base.
Has anyone actually been doing this? Granted I haven't read every post, but the general path of conversation that I've been seeing is this:
People like me: The EK is worse than other fight/cast options.People like you: Well sure, anything looks bad when you compare it to a straight wizard!
Many people have made claims that the EK is garbage, or worthless, or whatever, but nothing has shown the class unable to function at its APL.
Plenty has shown that. Math has shown it. My experience has shown it. Heck, your own numbers hinted at it, and that was looking at it just as it was starting to finally hit its stride. If you actually looked at the bigger picture instead of a best-case-scenario endgame snapshot, you'd see it. Just because you're not looking doesn't mean it hasn't been shown.
Keep in mind, folks, that the EK existed before such things as the Magus class or any of the Hybrids. Of course the Magus is better! It was created to fulfill that same "martial spell-caster" type, and they developed new rules to make it work.
This is why the PrC's need to be redone. They were an early attempt at a gestalt or multi-class that are now outdone by new classes, archetypes, and hybrids.
^No, Rage Prophet progresses Oracle Revelations (existing ones, not new ones), Oracle's Curse (at full speed), spellcasting (3/4 speed), and Rage Powers (Barbarian 1/Oracle 19 doesn't get this), and gives you a few other things that Barbarian 1/Oracle 19 doesn't get (including the ability to heal yourself and eventually buff yourself while in Rage). But the major bug is no progression of rounds of Rage (and a lesser bug is no additional Oracle Revelations).
Oracle does all of those better, because you get immunity to fatigue at 6 with barb 1 oracle 5. Become immune to fatigue, drop rage, buff self/heal self, done.
Major bug is 3/4 bab
major bug is terrible rage power pre requisite.
major bug is all the lost caster levels
Major bug is no additional rage powers
I wouldn't call those major bugs, but most of them reasonable (maybe somewhat steep) taxes for progressing some features of both base classes. The exception is no additional Rage Powers, which is just one of the same problems that Barbarian 1/Oracle 19 has, only Barbarian 1/Oracle 19 has it worse because -- not having any Rage Powers to start with, it can't take the feat Extra Rage Power (this requires the Rage Power class feature, not just Rage class feature, so you need Barbarian 2 to be able to take this, and don't use an archatype that replaces the level 2 Rage Power unless it replaces it with a fixed Rage Power). This cuts into your spellcasting progression and caster level (although the latter can be negated by paying the appropriate trait tax), although not as much as Rage Prophet.
|
All the core prestige classes are straight ports from 3.5. When pathfinder was released, it was intended to be a smooth transition from 3.5 to pathfinder. This is a side effect of bad things still being bad. As the new content has come out, things have been made more unique and a lesser regard to backwards compatibility. What is needed is a supplement that rewrites all CRB prestige classes without regard to how they were built in 3.5.
Don't blame Paizo for the core prestige classes being bad, blame the wizards writers that made them all those years ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^In fairness, the Wizards writers made most of them pretty good for the time, but the D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder transition made the base classes a lot better while making the Core prestige classes on the average only somewhat better (the exceptions being that Arcane Archer got enough better to be still pretty good for the right niches for at least a 4 level dip, while Eldritch Knight got better only by adding the capstone ability, and as far as I can tell Loremaster did not get better at all, although Loremaster started out good enough in D&D 3.5 that it is still situationally okay now).
People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.
Regarding the change: early entry going away is a shame, but not a huge deal IMO
Losing the ability to take stuff like arcane strike with an SLA I feel is an unnecessary hit to something cool and flavorful and useful for classes that could use the help anyways though. So for that reason I feel this change is a bad one
Don't blame Paizo for the core prestige classes being bad, blame the wizards writers that made them all those years ago.
Why not both?
Blame WotC for not knowing how to make a decent PrC back in 2000, but blame Paizo for reprinting those same ancient, outdated and lame PrCs nine years later.I mean yeah. It's valid to say that the magus is newer so of course it's better because it's a more developed and realized as a class. But it's also fair to point out that before Pathfinder hit the shelves 3.5 had better gish PrCs and had the duskblade, which is more or less a proto magus and Paizo chose to do nothing with that and repeat the same mistake wizards did almost a decade earlier
Sure, but I want to play a character that utilizes buff spells and utility spells while being a front line combatant. There is no 3/4 caster that gains access to those spells without doing system mastery backflips.
In fact, I have yet to see a good reason as to why every casting class needs a separate spell list. Over time it makes balancing spells harder rather than easier.
People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.
I think I'd rather play a Samsaran magus with Spell Blending than an EK buffer. Less buffs maybe, but I could actually be a front line combatant, unlike an EK.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's so much that the magus makes the EK obsolete as that the magus is better at blending the fighting & casting roles than the EK (and particularly the former).
If the magus made the EK entirely obsolete no one would care that the EK does not live up to expectations - they would just switch to the magus. It's the potential versatility of the EK both in terms of spell list and class entry options that keeps people interested in it and hopeful to see an improved version.
Similarly, I'm interested in an improved version of the Mystic Theurge despite the fact that the witch offers a spell list drawing from arcane and divine themes, because the MT offers more options in combining those two magical themes.
Sorry Jiggy, but you are missing all kinds of little details like the EK starting with a 1 BAB, and weapon focus, so unbuffed, he is +2 ahead of the other two (who could bet weapon focus at level 3. They can each spend a round buffing to be -1/+1 from where the EK walks around unbuffed. He also has many more options of race, weapons, deity, etc.
Most of the levels the EK is down in BAB, he has options like mirror image, that put him in much better shape then the cleric, and access to the entire wizard spell list, which give him versatility that blows the bard out of the water.
But really this is all boiling down to +1 or +2 at mid levels. Not a big deal, especially since the EK is probably a transmuter, and can walk around with +2 to strength due to school ability. And since he made his own belts and headbands and other wondrous item crap (from his wiz bonus feat and rocken spellcraft), this stuff means very little. Seriously, who cares about +2 when the EK can get 5 attacks per round +4 to str and NA, pounce, 40' move, scent and grab? with ONE SPELL. And he can cast that spell 4 times a day!
Again, the EK is probably a little worse then battle bard or battle cleric, at least at a few levels, (As most agree it should be) but I just don't see why a point or two here or there really matters in unoptimized play. Most of this stuff boils down to the difference of a single feat, item, or 1st level spell, so it is REALLY INSIGNIFICANT!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
/dons Cap of Speculation
Considering the entire premise of Pathfinder Unchained is that it is Pathfinder without worrying about backwards compatibility to 3.5, I wonder if we will see some redos of some of the CRB PrCs. That might have even been the final straw that convinced them to reverse the FAQ, as they didnt want people gettingg early entry on the new versions.
An EK that focuses on utility spells is just a wizard holding a sword. The attraction of EK was combining sword and sorcery into one art, something which magus does much better.People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.
That is all I want out of EK. Magus was created for those that wanted a true gish. An EK is not combining sword and sorcery into one art, it is just a wizard holding a sword.
The magus has a lot of cool spells removed from their list to compensate for the amazing class features. As an EK, you are expected to make use of cool spells like magic jar and the like (which EKs possessing random mooks in armor are still fairly deadly).
Of course if pre-9 is more than half your game, don't do prestige classes.
/dons Cap of Speculation
Considering the entire premise of Pathfinder Unchained is that it is Pathfinder without worrying about backwards compatibility to 3.5, I wonder if we will see some redos of some of the CRB PrCs. That might have even been the final straw that convinced them to reverse the FAQ, as they didnt want people gettingg early entry on the new versions.
If this was the case, I think we'd see this released with such an announcement and/or closer to the date.
An EK that focuses on utility spells is just a wizard holding a sword. The attraction of EK was combining sword and sorcery into one art, something which magus does much better.People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.
That is all I want out of EK. Magus was created for those that wanted a true gish. An EK is not combining sword and sorcery into one art, it is just a wizard holding a sword.
The magus has a lot of cool spells removed from their list to compensate for the amazing class features. As an EK, you are expected to make use of cool spells like magic jar and the like (which EKs possessing random mooks in armor are still fairly deadly).
Of course if pre-9 is more than half your game, don't do prestige classes.
The Magus loses three levels of spellcasting omnipotence for its class abilities. The paired down spell list is to emphasize the evoker theme. Its the same with the bard and other partial casters. If you want to do something a little different in the spell department? Well too bad I guess. -_-
An EK that focuses on utility spells is just a wizard holding a sword. The attraction of EK was combining sword and sorcery into one art, something which magus does much better.People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.
That is all I want out of EK. Magus was created for those that wanted a true gish. An EK is not combining sword and sorcery into one art, it is just a wizard holding a sword.
The magus has a lot of cool spells removed from their list to compensate for the amazing class features. As an EK, you are expected to make use of cool spells like magic jar and the like (which EKs possessing random mooks in armor are still fairly deadly).
Of course if pre-9 is more than half your game, don't do prestige classes.
So if you want a Wizard holding a sword, why not use, oh I dunno... Blade Adept Arcanist?
'Cause that's a significantly better Wizard Holding a Sword than the EK is. And by better I mean not-sh1t, unlike the EK which is sh1t.
An EK that focuses on utility spells is just a wizard holding a sword. The attraction of EK was combining sword and sorcery into one art, something which magus does much better.People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.
That is all I want out of EK. Magus was created for those that wanted a true gish. An EK is not combining sword and sorcery into one art, it is just a wizard holding a sword.
The magus has a lot of cool spells removed from their list to compensate for the amazing class features. As an EK, you are expected to make use of cool spells like magic jar and the like (which EKs possessing random mooks in armor are still fairly deadly).
Of course if pre-9 is more than half your game, don't do prestige classes.
So if you want a Wizard holding a sword, why not use, oh I dunno... Blade Adept Arcanist?
'Cause that's a significantly better Wizard Holding a Sword than the EK is. And by better I mean not-sh1t, unlike the EK which is sh1t.
Could you please explain to me why the Blade Adept doesn't suck? As far as I can tell, the Blade Adept is stuck with half BAB it's entire career and doesn't really get anything to make that better. Sure, Arcane Accuracy is a thing, but even if the Blade Adept has both Dex and Int at 30, that's still only a +30 to hit before enhancements and buffs.
That's not exactly good as that requires significant expenditure of resources to hit 30 in both Dex and Int without crippling the other stats.
[Edit] I should point out I'm aware the Arcanist is a 9th level caster. But from the perspective of 'sword mage' or 'Wizard with a sword' the Blade Adept really blows. It's got an amazingly powerful sword... but can't really use it well.
An EK that focuses on utility spells is just a wizard holding a sword. The attraction of EK was combining sword and sorcery into one art, something which magus does much better.People keep saying the Magus obsoletes the EK, but I still cant make a Magus with a utility spell focus.
That is all I want out of EK. Magus was created for those that wanted a true gish. An EK is not combining sword and sorcery into one art, it is just a wizard holding a sword.
The magus has a lot of cool spells removed from their list to compensate for the amazing class features. As an EK, you are expected to make use of cool spells like magic jar and the like (which EKs possessing random mooks in armor are still fairly deadly).
Of course if pre-9 is more than half your game, don't do prestige classes.
So if you want a Wizard holding a sword, why not use, oh I dunno... Blade Adept Arcanist?
'Cause that's a significantly better Wizard Holding a Sword than the EK is. And by better I mean not-sh1t, unlike the EK which is sh1t.
Could you please explain to me why the Blade Adept doesn't suck? As far as I can tell, the Blade Adept is stuck with half BAB it's entire career and doesn't really get anything to make that better. Sure, Arcane Accuracy is a thing, but even if the Blade Adept has both Dex and Int at 30, that's still only a +30 to hit before enhancements and buffs.
That's not exactly good as that requires significant expenditure of resources to hit 30 in both Dex and Int without crippling the other stats.
[Edit] I should point out I'm aware the Arcanist is a 9th level caster. But from the perspective of 'sword mage' or 'Wizard with a sword' the Blade Adept really blows. It's got an amazingly powerful sword... but can't really use it well.
Amazingly powerful sword + other exploits + full spell progression - 1/2 BAB
vs
Normal sword - no abilities - slowed spell progression - 1/2-3/4 BAB until lv9.
...
Arcanist is a "Wizard HOLDING a Sword" much better than the EK.
And if you're going for "EK is a mage-knight" it's a worse mage-knight than every other 6/9 Spellcaster class out there.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry Jiggy, but you are missing all kinds of little details like the EK starting with a 1 BAB, and weapon focus, so unbuffed, he is +2 ahead of the other two (who could bet weapon focus at level 3. They can each spend a round buffing to be -1/+1 from where the EK walks around unbuffed. He also has many more options of race, weapons, deity, etc.
Most of the levels the EK is down in BAB, he has options like mirror image, that put him in much better shape then the cleric, and access to the entire wizard spell list, which give him versatility that blows the bard out of the water.
But really this is all boiling down to +1 or +2 at mid levels. Not a big deal, especially since the EK is probably a transmuter, and can walk around with +2 to strength due to school ability. And since he made his own belts and headbands and other wondrous item crap (from his wiz bonus feat and rocken spellcraft), this stuff means very little. Seriously, who cares about +2 when the EK can get 5 attacks per round +4 to str and NA, pounce, 40' move, scent and grab? with ONE SPELL. And he can cast that spell 4 times a day!
Again, the EK is probably a little worse then battle bard or battle cleric, at least at a few levels, (As most agree it should be) but I just don't see why a point or two here or there really matters in unoptimized play. Most of this stuff boils down to the difference of a single feat, item, or 1st level spell, so it is REALLY INSIGNIFICANT!
I played an EK from 1 to almost 14, then the very next character I played was a melee cleric.
They were in different leagues. It is not "just a point or two here or there". The cleric is noticeably, tangibly, experientially superior.
Maybe it's different with the polymorph guy you keep bringing out (but given your record so far on accurate theorycrafting, I doubt it), but if the only way that an EK works is as a shapeshifter, then the design of the EK has failed.
When you play an EK as the thing that the class description sets him up to be, you have a gameplay experience in which you can really feel the shortcomings.
|
/dons Cap of Speculation
Considering the entire premise of Pathfinder Unchained is that it is Pathfinder without worrying about backwards compatibility to 3.5, I wonder if we will see some redos of some of the CRB PrCs. That might have even been the final straw that convinced them to reverse the FAQ, as they didnt want people gettingg early entry on the new versions.
I posted something similar the day the SLA announcement was made. And I asked the Paizo staff to at least give us a hint if that was the case to try to disarm this whole argument before it gained steam. They did not say anything, which makes me guess that either they really like rampant arguments on their boards, or there isn't anything addressing this coming in Unchained.