Maybe you could Gate it to another messageboard?Can I use Wish?This thread really just needs to die.Like so many others. But it has over 100 posts, so Power Word, Delete doesn't work anymore.
Just try using that full BAB or one of those Fighter tricks that the EK gets on it.
Just try using that full BAB or one of those Fighter tricks that the EK gets on it.*chokes laughing*
You're a bad person. You're right, but you're still a bad person. XD
I know, I'm horrible, but I couldn't resist.
|
I happen to disagree with the OP. I have not read the entire thread, but I think the Elderitch knight seems fine to me.
In 2003 I was at ICON, a sci fi convention at Stoney Brook University on Long Island in New York. At that convention there was a panel with Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Bill Slavicsek. They were convincing us about all the good things that were going to be in 3.5, which was coming out in July of that year.
After their presentation they took questions and talked with us the audience. I remember asking Skip Williams about my difficulties trying to replicate the elven figher- mage with the 3rd Ed system. While I don’t remember his exact words, I do remember that he mentioned while they were making the new system they were going to have to break a few eggs, and the elven fighter mage was one of them. I also remember him commenting that fighter mage was to good of a deal in 2nd ED. In 2nd ED with the experience point progressions the way it was, the fighter- mage would often only be a level behind the party’s wizard and fighter. That hardly seemed fair to the single classed characters.
I often play multi class characters, myself such as mystic theurges etc. I find their single biggest handicap is that their “Spells per day” lag behind the single classed spell caster. But I realize that is the price I pay for greater versatility.
I like most of the tuneups that Paizo has done with Pathfinder. I could go into a long list of the things I like. I'll pick three. I like that there are three experience progressions, a slow medium and a fast progression. I like that a character gets 10 feats over his 20 level carrier instead of 7. I like that Hit dice have been linked to Base Attack Bonus. Ok i may miss my use rope sill, but i can add that in if i want to. no big deal.
The elderich knight seems fine to me. It gets a full base attack bonus, +9 casting levels over 10 levels, one good save, and three bonus feats. Im sure there is more I have over looked.
I happen to disagree with the OP. I have not read the entire thread, but I think the Elderitch knight seems fine to me.
In 2003 I was at ICON, a sci fi convention at Stoney Brook University on Long Island in New York. At that convention there was a panel with Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Bill Slavicsek. They were convincing us about all the good things that were going to be in 3.5, which was coming out in July of that year.
After their presentation they took questions and talked with us the audience. I remember asking Skip Williams about my difficulties trying to replicate the elven figher- mage with the 3rd Ed system. While I don’t remember his exact words, I do remember that he mentioned while they were making the new system they were going to have to break a few eggs, and the elven fighter mage was one of them. I also remember him commenting that fighter mage was to good of a deal in 2nd ED. In 2nd ED with the experience point progressions the way it was, the fighter- mage would often only be a level behind the party’s wizard and fighter. That hardly seemed fair to the single classed characters.
I often play multi class characters, myself such as mystic theurges etc. I find their single biggest handicap is that their “Spells per day” lag behind the single classed spell caster. But I realize that is the price I pay for greater versatility.
I like most of the tuneups that Paizo has done with Pathfinder. I could go into a long list of the things I like. I'll pick three. I like that there are three experience progressions, a slow medium and a fast progression. I like that a character gets 10 feats over his 20 level carrier instead of 7. I like that Hit dice have been linked to Base Attack Bonus. Ok i may miss my use rope sill, but i can add that in if i want to. no big deal.
The elderich knight seems fine to me. It gets a full base attack bonus, +9 casting levels over 10 levels, one good save, and three bonus feats. Im sure there is more I have...
Dude - I was there (maybe even BEYOND there) by about page 4 ... this stuff ... it's taken on a life all it's own.
8-0
|
Druid was so buff primarily because 3.x shapeshifting/polymorph was so ridiculously broken until very, very late on in 3.5. Even then the late nerfs to wildshape really didn't go far enough in putting the smackdown on the druid.
Actually, I´m not even talking about the core druid. The stuff they got even LONG after it was clear that they were broken in terms of spells and feats is ridiculous. They got a 2nd level spells that basically trumps black tentacles for example. It wasn´t JUST the oversight of polymorph. Besides which druids were broken in 3.0 BEFORE natural spells and they got that in 3.5.
Speaker in dreams, when you say “ I was there”, do you mean you were at that ICON panel discussion in 2003 or that you made the point I am making earlier in the thread?
No - I meant "there" being in agreement that the class was, in fact, rather powerful as it was (if not more powerful when fully considering it) after about 4 pages in.
Consider me a convert as I'm WAY past where this took a life of it's own. It was more an FYI post for you since you directed it to the "OP" and that's me. :-)
|
|
Speaker in dreams thanks. i was hoping that you had been at that panel discussion. If that was the case i would have been interested to know what you might have remembered.
Sometimes these discussions devolve and I find so often people would rather hear themselves speak ( or type in this case) rather then listen to what other people might have to say. thank you for taking the time to read my post
The fighter mage is a topic that is brought up every so often. I think that there were 5 or more variants put out in various source books throughout 3.0-3.5. I think there are some people who simply want the good base attack bonus progression, the d10 hit dice and the full caster progression. Anyways, your right this thread has taken a life of its own.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I happen to disagree with the OP. I have not read the entire thread, but I think the Elderitch knight seems fine to me.
I like most of the tuneups that Paizo has done with Pathfinder. I could go into a long list of the things I like. I'll pick three. I like that there are three experience progressions, a slow medium and a fast progression. I like that a character gets 10 feats over his 20 level carrier instead of 7. I like that Hit dice have been linked to Base Attack Bonus. Ok i may miss my use rope sill, but i can add that in if i want to. no big deal.
The elderich knight seems fine to me. It gets a full base attack bonus, +9 casting levels over 10 levels, one good save, and three bonus feats. Im sure there is more I have...
Elyas,
I have to agree with you. I apologize if I'm reiterating a point that's already been made, it's been awhile since I've checked on this thread.Here's my take.
Fighter2/Wizard8/Eldritch Knight 10.
BAB +16, Caster Level 17th
Four iterative attacks and 9th level arcane spells.
No other core Paizo prestige class and/or base class combo can produce this. Even Sorcerer 10/Dragon Disciple 10 doesn't have 9th level spells and it sure doesn't have a +16 or better BAB.
It doesn't work for the arcane archer either.
To me, that's good enough to not have a few extra abilities.
At 20th level my guy is hasted, and attacking you 5 times a round with a scimitar or rapier that threatens on a 15 or higher.
Oh, and if I DO crit, I'm following it up with a maximized disintegrate.
What's not to love?
Answer: NOTHING!
I love this class, and am enjoying playing it a LOT!
-QGJ
Oh, and if I DO crit, I'm following it up with a maximized disintegrate.Does someone else want to get this?
I'm leaving it alone on the grounds that the player enjoys it.
For me the real draw of the EK is the extra HP, the different feats, the ability to crit with a spell and follow it up with another spell immediately and the increased chance of hitting with the ranged touch attack spells I do use, all requiring that I give up only 2 caster levels.
|
|
Full BAB and spell progression are nearly impossible to put together; they are the two most effective things in the game.In short, wrong.
In long, wroooooooooong.
Full BAB is not even in the same ballpark, and moreover as long as the to-hit numbers are the same full BAB is only slightly stronger than 1/2 BAB, and even then only at certain levels.
I'm going back to this one to try and contribute to the thread rather than mock it.
Full BAB sounds nice, but in reality means very little. The things BAB affects are:
1. When you get you iterative attacks.
2. When you can take some feats and prestige classes.
You're going to ask me, but wait, BAB adds to combat rolls too, right?
Yes, it does. But the difference between a full BAB class and the other classes is rarely more than +5.
At the greatest range, 20th level, BAB is 10 points different between the Full BAB and the Half BAB class. The 3/4 BAB class is only 5 points behind. Look at 10th level, there is a gap of only 5 and 3 respectively.
The real problem with these seemingly large differences is that it doesn't have an effect on combat. Cause guess what else adds to combat rolls?
Ability score bonuses.
Feat bonuses.
Weapon bonuses.
Spell bonuses.
Situational bonuses.
And probably more that I can't think of. BAB is lost in the massive pile of attack bonuses, and that makes it less special. When the fighter has a +21 and the rogue has a +19, it doesn't mean much that the rogue could have had a +22 and an extra attack if he had gone fighter. A good chunk of the time they're both going to be making only one attack at almost the same bonus.
It's even worse now in Pathfinder. Before, it meant something because you got to put your BAB against the enemies BAB with combat maneuvers. Poor little Half BAB is at a disadvantage to Full BAB. But now all those other bonuses get to jump in, and Full BAB ain't special no more. (You want to see what you can do to make BAB special again, check out page four here.)
So there is the long version on why me and MiB don't count Full BAB as the hot stuff everyone else does.
|
Here's the counter-argument: generally, an "average EL" encounter needs somewhere between a 10-15 for full BAB to hit, and they expect you to have an appropriate-level magic weapon and a few feats to augment that. Change that by 2, or 3, or 4; and you're expected damage output drops a lot, especially in the wake of a full attack. VS AC 35 the difference between +22 and +19 is pretty significant as far as your % of hits etc.
Also, the game is played during levels where the BAB does qualify you for extra attacks (feats are mostly fighter-based anyway). So where does that leave us? You could argue "you really should be casting anyway", but smart GMs / scenarios can make it difficult to rest and recouperate, and suprisingly the fighter "lockdown mage" feat lines can be effective, especially in group combat.
So where does that leave this hybrid? He's -3 in BAB; that means he probably can't qualify as a front-line fighter. He's -2 spell levels. That matters less and less as levels progress... you're on par on level (thanks to the "take this if you multi" talent), and after about 4th level spells (7th for mages, 9th for this guy) you generally have a good lockdine line.
Again, I just think this particular class plays best as a mage primary with archery backup; rays and arrows working in harmony. It lets you conserve spells during "gauntlets" (which should happen somewhat often at high levels), gives you the more important things (HP, Fortitude Save, and enough feats to get Point Blank / Precise etc). Sadly I don't see a good way for it to be worked on the front line; You're -5 to hit / -2 damage vs a fighter by level 10... that's bad enough.
So bottom line, I feel they make good (the best) ray blasters, which aren't as bad as some might think (they're not the "combat lockdown God", but I haven't seen those as effective as people theorize them in party situations). Is it quite the crossover that the Paladin/Sorcerer/Arcane Archer is? No, that class loses 1 BAB and lots of spell levels (in short, the opposite), in exchange for being a really good archer with the occasional buff spells and awesome saves. But it has their place in the world.
|
|
If you can grant that spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, and most especially Enervate are "pretty good", that's his niche. He can hit with these far better. You're going to argue weapon damage is useless over and over; I can't help you there.
He's basically able to hit things a Wizard never could with rays; by 11th level he's +3 to hit with rays over said Wizard (assuming the wizard also took all the point blank / precise / etc), which you're going to argue isn't significant; it is, you're hitting 15% more often (and will get better when he actually quaifies for improved precise in 3 levels). He's also more survivable, again Fort is the best save and HP are the best defense. So as a ray wizard he's very, very good; better than the standard. Now whether Ray wizards are "the best" is another question; Enervation is certainly a great nerf spell, 12d6 ranged isn't bad damage for "throw away" (level 2) spells, and even at half an empowered ray of enfeeblement can make melee opponents much less of a threat (and if your campaign allows metamagic rods so much the better). You're not really giving up much; and as an archer he's lacking the 3rd attack for 3 levels and is -5 to hit / -2 damage compared to a fighter, which isn't exciting, but not as throw away as you make it.
We'll go in loops here; you don't respect any wizard but the base wizard that is Treatmonk controlling. I generally like survivability and haven't seen the "Controller" Wizard be quite as effective as described, despite how good he looks on paper. So we'll have to agree to disagree here and call it a day.
|
If you can grant that spells like Ray of Enfeeblement, Ray of Exhaustion, and most especially Enervate are "pretty good", that's his niche. He can hit with these far better. You're going to argue weapon damage is useless over and over; I can't help you there.
He's basically able to hit things a Wizard never could with rays; by 11th level he's +3 to hit with rays over said Wizard (assuming the wizard also took all the point blank / precise / etc), which you're going to argue isn't significant; it is, you're hitting 15% more often (and will get better when he actually quaifies for improved precise in 3 levels). He's also more survivable, again Fort is the best save and HP are the best defense. So as a ray wizard he's very, very good; better than the standard. Now whether Ray wizards are "the best" is another question; Enervation is certainly a great nerf spell, 12d6 ranged isn't bad damage for "throw away" (level 2) spells, and even at half an empowered ray of enfeeblement can make melee opponents much less of a threat (and if your campaign allows metamagic rods so much the better). You're not really giving up much; and as an archer he's lacking the 3rd attack for 3 levels and is -5 to hit / -2 damage compared to a fighter, which isn't exciting, but not as throw away as you make it.
We'll go in loops here; you don't respect any wizard but the base wizard that is Treatmonk controlling. I generally like survivability and haven't seen the "Controller" Wizard be quite as effective as described, despite how good he looks on paper. So we'll have to agree to disagree here and call it a day.
Give it up. A lot of people have decided that having flexibility isn't worth losing a smidgeon of power. I for one agree that EK is a solid class. 2 spell levels for more survivability isn't bad and better attacks. Sure it ain't for everyone, especially a numbers cruncher, but I like the flexibility that the PRCs in general allow. It really is a matter of trading a certain degree of power for a certain degree of flexibility. 3.5 ignored that and set a precedence for PRCs being overall better than staying in a base-class.
I think the PRPG PRCs are a good thing. Every adventurer should have a prestige class? That is not Prestigious. In 3.5 you were taking a serious hit in power if you didn't prestige. I like that we now have a real, tough choice to make instead of dumping out of a base class ASAP so you can be truly powerful with Overpowered Prestige Class X (which is usually followed closely by Synergistic Overpowered Prestige Class Y).Bravo Paizo and Pathfinder for not kowtowing to that line of thought.
.....I'm just looking at PrC to PrC comparisons
You cant effectively do this. Why not compare the Wizard to the fighter or rogue. Wizard dont get special abilities every level, they only get 5 over 20 levels. So your EK getting 4 over 10 is not bad.
As an EK you are most likely a wizard first and added flavor of a fighter. Getting new spell level is a special ability. Think about this end game, you can end up 1 fighter/ 9 wizard/ 10 EK, this leaves you effective wizard level of 18. Thats your 9th level spells, so your still an effective caster. Your giving up 2 levels of caster to give the bonuses of the EK. Personally, I feel this PrC is in line with the others.
@ Fake Healers: Well said
There are a lot of good points about the stats and the power of the class being in line with everything else in the game, it's just that when you see all of the special stuff that the other prestige classes get, the EK looks kind of boring in comparison.
I homebrewed a version for my group, and while it's far from perfect, and can most assuredly broken by someone who is better at maths, it works very well for the group I game with, and has actually gotten played.
For the most part things are unchanged. The BAB and saves remain the same. What is changed then is:
at 3rd level, there are no new spells gained. Instead a special ability is. We called it spell burn and it allowed the caster, as part of a standard atk action, to sacrifice a spell, and add its level in d6s to the atk's dmg. This can only be done as part of an atk with a weapon, and only once per turn. We had it so that you had to announce this prior to rolling the atk, and if you missed the spell was not lost.
at fifth there are no new spells gained. Instead the arcane channeling ability the duskblade has is added. This works as normal, with a touch atk being added to a weapon strike. At ninth level it does the multiple strikes thing too.
at eighth level the EK gets no new spells, but gains the mettle feat that the hexblade had. It is basically the imporved uncanny dodge feat, but instead of being applied to ref saves, it is with fort.
and then that was it. A simple little add on and suddenly the class was much more attractive to the players. We had some arguments that it was too powerful, but as it is the d6s don't make that huge of a difference when they get used, since they still have to succeed on a weapon attack, and the spell channel allows them to add a little variety to their turns. Mettle doesn't make the big difference is made in 3.5, but it is still useful against things like energy drain. That last feature that the class has in the book, the auto cast on a critical is a really neat feature, and the fact that it can be any spell is really cool. The problem is that crits, specifically confirmed crits just dont show up often enough to make that one ability really worth it. And like others have said, the change in HD just wasn't enough of a draw for my players.
|
EKs aren't more flexible because they still can't enter melee.
Its these kind of definitive statemens that make the math arguments so insane. can't enter melee, ie not have ANY chance in melee when this game deals with a roll of a dice. That uber optimized fighter that does 50 DPS can fumble three rounds in a row and that gimpy EK could crit 3 rounds in a row and get off a lot of damage potentially.
I'd actually like to see a review of someone who actually played one in a decent length campaign, through an entire adventure path for instance, and give a TRUE assessment of the class based on real world data and not a calculator and 20 round simulation averages, all while comparing them to a single class build in a one one one robot fight against some random uber monster.
|
|
And while I am arguing for the flexibility here; I will say the BattleBard tends to do all of this better. At level 7 he can haste-song the party for +3 to hit +2 damage then commence asswhooping; and gets a metric ton of skills to boot. From most people's reads that is what they want to do... So do it with the very fun bard class (my primary PFS, Thallin, is in fact a battlebard).
Can the EK enter combat? Yes, just as much as a rogue or monk can. Or a cleric, for that matter.
The rogue and monk both disable enemies when entering melee (Crippling Strike and Stunning Fist), and still have trouble entering melee without spell buffs. Clerics get hellacious self-buffs (and real armor for free, rather than at a high cost in feats) to make melee possible, buffs the EK does not have access to.
Im confused as to why you think this? They just do it a different way. They disable with "Hold person", "Ray of Exhaustion", "Sleetstorm", "Blindness/Deafness", "Slow". You are only 1 level behind in spells as a wizard. While your primary role is playing the caster you can enter combat with buffs (while different from cleric are still buffs). Shield, Mirrior Image, Displacement, Cat's Grace, Heroism, Haste, Keen edge all will help you play a skirmisher. All this is spell level 3 or less. So could be obtained upon your first level of EK.
I do respect your view and your experience. I have not yet played one, but on paper they look viable. I would mind if you elaborated on why these things didnt work well. First hand knowledge would help others see your point. Not just saying 1 line about each topic.
All of which you can do from outside melee, none of which require or even encourage you to enter melee with anything but an incapacitated foe.
And you're two levels. People accuse me of never having played an EK. :P
Yes you can, but you can disable enemies just as effectively. And this allows you enter the combat and be just as protected as those other classes.
Sorry my statment wasnt clear. Your 1 "spell level" behind, meaning if wizard has level 5 spells you have level 4 spells. Not the best wording, for that i apologize.