Eldritch Knight Wizards appear to not work


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

The "casters should be able to equal Martials briefly by expending resources" thing is one of the biggest problems with PF1 casters. Because in practice that doesnt equate to "equal Martials occasionally", it equates to "equal Martials when it really matters".

And that's why the opinion of why play a martial?

Seriously though, the fixation on being a touch behind in accuracy without, you know, the loads of ways to debuff enemies or have your allies buff you is ridiculous.

Just offhand, Fear to Strike is a great combo, and with a level 3 slot it debuffs multiple foes.

True Target, as mentioned, is ace for you AND the party.

Looking at things outside of a vacuum, if you have an Occult casting buddy, they throw down Synthesia and everyone is getting easy hits for a round at least. Divine or Occult can hit you with Heroism, or as mentioned Trick Magic Item is an option.

As an aside I disagree that 35% chance for a caster/martial to hit a boss isn't a bad balance point FOR BASE ACCURACY VS AC.
I have learned through years of painful experience that boss survivability pretty much has to come from making them hard to actually harm, or they die super fast no matter how much of a beating you thought they could take.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

why are your first thoughts to stab the high CR enemies and not shocking grasp them? or say polar ray? to do 10d8+their level*2 damage?

or say cast earthquake while you cast a heightened fly on the party?

you should probably start with spells and use melee/bow to clean up the smaller guys.

Why bother with a weapon at all? Just use cantrips on smaller guys and play a wizard.

Paradozen wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

So I was building up an eldritch knight with wizard as the main class, all excited about it. However with the removal of heroism from the arcane spell list and the fact enlarge person doesn’t include an accuracy boost, there is no way for a wizard to be workable as an eldritch knight.

** spoiler omitted **...

Is mask of terror factored into your accuracy in boss fights? Every failed save includes another +2 attack, stacks with flat-footed. And as your highest level spell I would imagine it is the asset you spend on a boss fight.

I did not include it Due to the low likelihood of the boss failing his save.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who GM’d quite a bit for 1e it was impossible to make a single monster enemy hard. PF has never done lair/legendary actions like 5e so the action economy issues just kill them. AC at higher levels being a joke no matter level discrepancy and nearly all monsters having one weak save meant their defenses were never good enough to save them. The only way it works was pairing that monster with some henchmen, which is where an eldritch knight character would shine.

Anyway as said said in the reddit thread I think we got used to the 1e norm of higher level enemies being the norm for battles. I could at mid levels throw a monster 5-7 levels higher than the players at them and they really wouldn’t break a sweat. That monster in any one round could take out a single player, but the fact there were 4-5 players meant the boss was doomed unless it was a caster with powerful get out of jail free spells. But things like demons, devils, automations, constructs, golems, giants, etc were all too easy.

Now you’ll fight a +1-3 boss on their own or with maybe one other and it will be a tough back and forth battle. You won’t get regular hits in without strategy and they won’t OHKO you because they’re closer in levels. I think that’s a much funnier experience. From my playtest group a party of 4 at level 13 beat a +2 monster and it was pretty thrilling. It was different because it was less about just getting a few big hits in but about landing some persistent damage, controlling its movements, spacing out the combatants and setting up debuffs to line up with attacks.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Cast heightened form of the dragon, or true strike + disentigrate, or haste and true target, or a spell that doesn't have an attack roll that hits a weakness, or buff the fighter/Barb/champion/monk/rogue.

As a wizard you have many options.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Quote:

1. I'm simply saying that the numbers you base on are in a vacuum and hardly realistic, taking none of the variables that come up in roleplay. Those numbers get skewed up and down each time someone takes an action. That number might be accurate on first round, but then one tanglefoot bag or a fear spell and it's not accurate anymore. Except these can pile up after each turn.

-
3. I've covered it too. You got the most +to hit a caster can have at that level even with power-gaming builds. The issue isn't the knight, it's that all casters are capped at that number and no class will change it with exception of getting Master in a weapon by 15th somehow.
4. The pure wizard won't have power attack and double his dice, it was based on your build, which had power attack. Your dragon and monstrous forms can dish out more damage on that account. You could even go the Maneuvers route since you got the athletics for it. Dragon form and shove or grab works out better for you than a pure wizard.

4c. That's their niche. The fact that a fighter/wizard has more accuracy than a wizard/fighter can't be dismissed on a whim. You might not feel it's their forte and making them equal isn't that big of a deal, but the system seems to think so since every caster lags behind every martial in accuracy.

Again, your accuracy issue isn't based on wizard, but that all casters are capped lower than a martial at 15th and ACs might be too high at that level.

Okay? No other warrior needs other classes to be present to become viable in a fight.. But if having that requirement = roleplaying for you then you go for it.

3a. You keep mentioning min maxing. Do you actually think this build is min maxing? If so that’s a bit of a strange definition.

3b. Bards get a higher to hit. So do clerics. Druids would make sense to transform into beasts so even their to hit is better.

4. If you consider a wizard transforming into beasts as being eldritch knights, you go for it. Not really what I consider it to be though.

4c....

1. The other warriors will hit more often if you compare flat to hit with AC yes. But if the enemy is a caster who stonewalls him in, then his numbers don't matter. In a vacuum white room where two creatures just auto attack each other, then yes, warriors have better outcomes, I give you that. If the warriors are ambushed in a swamp and take penalties from the bog while the eldritch can dimension door around a few times, they aren't better. If there's an encounter there where a single solo class can deal with it, I call boring DM'ing.

3a. I believe than maxing your str at 16, then pumping every single point into it until 15th gets 20 is the definition of min-maxing stats? You're dumping charisma because you won't need it, same with dex. You're maxing melee and casting stat and keeping fort and will saves high.

3b. You mean the buffs they provide to themselves and others? Sure. But I was comparing the baseline aka what everyone has access to, being: 20STR + Proficiency +2Runes vs 15th AC. /Baseline/ casters will always lose to a martial. Just how a martial will always cast less spells and likely lag behind on spell levels. We could compare specific build paths all day and night if we nitpick comboes. I'm just basing this on your character, which has reached the base cap of his to hit that every character who gets expert weapon proficiency at 11th has.

4. Wizard EK are viable, they aren't just as accurate as martials. They bring infinitely more utility for the cost of that accuracy but again, it just seems that the AC numbers are too high. A dex class with expert proficiency cap will suffer from the same problem. The fact that Bard can buff his to-hit doesn't change the fact that the baseline cap is low compared to baseline ac for it's level. I'd personally lower AC rather than buff proficiency bonuses. On the upside, it costs much fewer class feats to pick up expert weaponry from Fighter than it costs the fighter to pick up a limited amount of spells per day. Personally I'd eat the to hit penalty and take multiplying my spells per day by quite a bit.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Corvo: I’m going to suggest we just end this conversation. I understand your points. I don’t agree with them and it’s evident you don’t agree with me. The way you keep rephrasing what I’m saying tells me you don’t understand my points. If you want to PM me I’m willing to go over them further. But I don’t think any further discussion will be fruitful :)


Quote:
Anyway as said said in the reddit thread I think we got used to the 1e norm of higher level enemies being the norm for battles.

As I mentioned in the OP the character is fine in non-boss fights. His accuracy is specifically an issue in boss fights only.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Corvo: I’m going to suggest we just end this conversation. I understand your points. I don’t agree with them and it’s evident you don’t agree with me. The way you keep rephrasing what I’m saying tells me you don’t understand my points. If you want to PM me I’m willing to go over them further. But I don’t think any further discussion will be fruitful :)

Fair enough, you keep rephrasing the same thing like it'll change the fact that you call a class path useless by basing it on hitting an enemy in a vacuum situation. The numbers you provide don't take into account any variables besides flanking. The numbers you provided for your characters accuracy also apply to about half-the classes, but let's go with it being a Wizard EK problem.

You're saying something doesn't work based on a false premise is all.
I'm also still curious about where those casters get Master proficiency in weapons that you mentioned, and if they do, why even pick up fighter multiclass?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:

The "casters should be able to equal Martials briefly by expending resources" thing is one of the biggest problems with PF1 casters. Because in practice that doesnt equate to "equal Martials occasionally", it equates to "equal Martials when it really matters".

And that's why the opinion of why play a martial?

Seriously though, the fixation on being a touch behind in accuracy without, you know, the loads of ways to debuff enemies or have your allies buff you is ridiculous.

Just offhand, Fear to Strike is a great combo, and with a level 3 slot it debuffs multiple foes.

True Target, as mentioned, is ace for you AND the party.

Looking at things outside of a vacuum, if you have an Occult casting buddy, they throw down Synthesia and everyone is getting easy hits for a round at least. Divine or Occult can hit you with Heroism, or as mentioned Trick Magic Item is an option.

As an aside I disagree that 35% chance for a caster/martial to hit a boss isn't a bad balance point FOR BASE ACCURACY VS AC.
I have learned through years of painful experience that boss survivability pretty much has to come from making them hard to actually harm, or they die super fast no matter how much of a beating you thought they could take.

Fear lasts for 1 round on a save (which the boss is likely to get). True target/true strike helps, but it’s a 1 strike buff and still needing a 14.

A wand of heroism would actually plug that gap very nicely. Thank you for the suggestion :) I think that was the missing key to pull the character off. It didn’t occur to me to consider using a high level wand.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

why are your first thoughts to stab the high CR enemies and not shocking grasp them? or say polar ray? to do 10d8+their level*2 damage?

or say cast earthquake while you cast a heightened fly on the party?

you should probably start with spells and use melee/bow to clean up the smaller guys.

Why bother with a weapon at all? Just use cantrips on smaller guys and play a wizard.

well, because I assumed you wanted to if you took fighter dedication, you can smack some fighter feats on your build to clean people up, there aren't feats for cantrips sadly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I'm also still curious about where those casters get Master proficiency in weapons that you mentioned, and if they do, why even pick up fighter multiclass?

If you would like to actually discuss something rather then misrepresenting me, go back and read my posts in their entirety and then PM me.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Corvo: I’m going to suggest we just end this conversation. I understand your points. I don’t agree with them and it’s evident you don’t agree with me. The way you keep rephrasing what I’m saying tells me you don’t understand my points. If you want to PM me I’m willing to go over them further. But I don’t think any further discussion will be fruitful :)

Fair enough, you keep rephrasing the same thing like it'll change the fact that you call a class path useless by basing it on hitting an enemy in a vacuum situation. The numbers you provide don't take into account any variables besides flanking. The numbers you provided for your characters accuracy also apply to about half-the classes, but let's go with it being a Wizard EK problem.

You're saying something doesn't work based on a false premise is all.
I'm also still curious about where those casters get Master proficiency in weapons that you mentioned, and if they do, why even pick up fighter multiclass?

i agree, this is level 15, there's going to be a lot of buffs and debuffs around on the playing field.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

But with your concern about saves, it seems like you are really just saying that wether focusing on spells or attacks, anyone short of legendary is going to be having problems with accuracy against bosses. This doesn’t seem like a build issue


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Corvo: I’m going to suggest we just end this conversation. I understand your points. I don’t agree with them and it’s evident you don’t agree with me. The way you keep rephrasing what I’m saying tells me you don’t understand my points. If you want to PM me I’m willing to go over them further. But I don’t think any further discussion will be fruitful :)

Fair enough, you keep rephrasing the same thing like it'll change the fact that you call a class path useless by basing it on hitting an enemy in a vacuum situation. The numbers you provide don't take into account any variables besides flanking. The numbers you provided for your characters accuracy also apply to about half-the classes, but let's go with it being a Wizard EK problem.

You're saying something doesn't work based on a false premise is all.
I'm also still curious about where those casters get Master proficiency in weapons that you mentioned, and if they do, why even pick up fighter multiclass?

i agree, this is level 15, there's going to be a lot of buffs and debuffs around on the playing field.

IMO debuffs to boost your character from viable to great are good. Not so much when going from incompetent to viable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
But with your concern about saves, it seems like you are really just saying that wether focusing on spells or attacks, anyone short of legendary is going to be having problems with accuracy against bosses. This doesn’t seem like a build issue

Not so much. All non-casters (except alchemists) get master proficiency which combined with flanking gives them a viable to hit. Clerics and bards get heroism which fills the gap between expert and master. Druids can just transform into a beast and it be thematically appropriate. Casters who want to cast will concentrate on spells that have worthwhile effects on a successful save.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Quote:
I'm also still curious about where those casters get Master proficiency in weapons that you mentioned, and if they do, why even pick up fighter multiclass?
If you would like to actually discuss something rather then misrepresenting me, go back and read my posts in their entirety and then PM me.

My bad, looking back it might be a misunderstanding since you quoted only part of the phrase and I thought your comment was towards the whole phrase..

Me: Many classes only have expert at level 15, so it's an universal issue. It seems that only Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Champion have a Master proficiency at level 15th.

Quoted me: "Many classes only have expert at level 15, so it's an universal issue."
You: No, they don’t. All non-spellcasters (except alchemist) have master by 15th level which boosts their base accuracy to 45%. A flank boosts it further to 55% which is about where you need to get it to in order to be viable.

Since I singled out the martials who get Master at by 15th, it should have been obvious that "many classes have expert at 15" was referring to the casters. I'll be clearer next time and read properly, since I misses the "non-spellcasters".

There's nothing misrepresenting by saying you focus on the accuracy which casters lag behind though, that's actually the core focus of your original post. If your post was titled something like "Caster based Elritch Knights lags behind in accuracy." I'd wholly agree with you that it does, and add that it should.

John Lynch 106 wrote:
Unicore wrote:
But with your concern about saves, it seems like you are really just saying that wether focusing on spells or attacks, anyone short of legendary is going to be having problems with accuracy against bosses. This doesn’t seem like a build issue
Not so much. All non-casters (except alchemists) get master proficiency which combined with flanking gives them a viable to hit. Clerics and bards get heroism which fills the gap between expert and master. Druids can just transform into a beast and it be thematically appropriate. Casters who want to cast will concentrate on spells that have worthwhile effects on a successful save.

Sounds like martials are just more accurate with weapons than spells, and casters are more accurate with spells than weapons.

I'm genuinely curious, what's the difference in accuracy between a 20str eldritch knight with expert proficiency in the bastard sword, compared to a 20str fighter with expert proficiency in any advanced weapon such as Flickmace at 15th?


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

why are your first thoughts to stab the high CR enemies and not shocking grasp them? or say polar ray? to do 10d8+their level*2 damage?

or say cast earthquake while you cast a heightened fly on the party?

you should probably start with spells and use melee/bow to clean up the smaller guys.

Why bother with a weapon at all? Just use cantrips on smaller guys and play a wizard.

Paradozen wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

So I was building up an eldritch knight with wizard as the main class, all excited about it. However with the removal of heroism from the arcane spell list and the fact enlarge person doesn’t include an accuracy boost, there is no way for a wizard to be workable as an eldritch knight.

** spoiler omitted **...

Is mask of terror factored into your accuracy in boss fights? Every failed save includes another +2 attack, stacks with flat-footed. And as your highest level spell I would imagine it is the asset you spend on a boss fight.
I did not include it Due to the low likelihood of the boss failing his save.

Understandable, though if you open with it, the failure effect is likely to happen once or twice across a long fight. If the low save us will, median save fails on an 8, so it will probably trigger within 3 rounds assuming you hit the whole party with it. though I realized it is only a -1 penalty to AC because it goes down at the end of the enemy turn. Not great, but it is something.

Also, some of your spell selection is going to be disappointing in play (more than usual). Cloak of Colors and Blindness both have incapacitate trait, so they won't work against enemies you actually care about in the slots you've prepared them. Fear instead of blindness will probably get at least a small debuff on enemies, and while it is completely different, Mariner's Curse instead of Cloak of Colors as an opening round debuff gives sickened 1 on a success, so a small debuff until they waste an action getting rid of it.

I do agree with you, by the way, EK starting as wizard is disappointing in the fights where it matters.


Paradozen wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

why are your first thoughts to stab the high CR enemies and not shocking grasp them? or say polar ray? to do 10d8+their level*2 damage?

or say cast earthquake while you cast a heightened fly on the party?

you should probably start with spells and use melee/bow to clean up the smaller guys.

Why bother with a weapon at all? Just use cantrips on smaller guys and play a wizard.

Paradozen wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:

So I was building up an eldritch knight with wizard as the main class, all excited about it. However with the removal of heroism from the arcane spell list and the fact enlarge person doesn’t include an accuracy boost, there is no way for a wizard to be workable as an eldritch knight.

** spoiler omitted **...

Is mask of terror factored into your accuracy in boss fights? Every failed save includes another +2 attack, stacks with flat-footed. And as your highest level spell I would imagine it is the asset you spend on a boss fight.
I did not include it Due to the low likelihood of the boss failing his save.

Understandable, though if you open with it, the failure effect is likely to happen once or twice across a long fight. If the low save us will, median save fails on an 8, so it will probably trigger within 3 rounds assuming you hit the whole party with it. though I realized it is only a -1 penalty to AC because it goes down at the end of the enemy turn. Not great, but it is something.

Also, some of your spell selection is going to be disappointing in play (more than usual). Cloak of Colors and Blindness both have incapacitate trait, so they won't work against enemies you actually care about in the slots you've prepared them. Fear instead of blindness will probably get at least a small debuff on enemies, and while it is completely different, Mariner's Curse instead of Cloak of Colors as an opening round debuff gives sickened 1 on a success, so a small debuff until they waste an action getting rid of it....

Thanks for the heads up on incapacitation trait. I did know about it, but forgot to factor it in. I’ll have to be more careful about that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Corvo: Your assumption a fighter would use an advanced weapon he is expert in vs one he is master in is strange to me. There is no difference between fighter and wizard in that case. Which should explain why the fighter wouldn’t do that. In fact he would be well advised to take advanced weapon training at 6th level to be legendary with it at 15th level.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
"Caster based Elritch Knights lags behind in accuracy." I'd wholly agree with you that it does, and add that it should.

Why? Someone spending a significant chunk of their class resources to try to get better at fighting with weapons only for the best answer to be for them to not bother at all except against low level enemies seems like a design failure on Paizo's part.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Corvo: I’m going to suggest we just end this conversation. I understand your points. I don’t agree with them and it’s evident you don’t agree with me. The way you keep rephrasing what I’m saying tells me you don’t understand my points. If you want to PM me I’m willing to go over them further. But I don’t think any further discussion will be fruitful :)

Fair enough, you keep rephrasing the same thing like it'll change the fact that you call a class path useless by basing it on hitting an enemy in a vacuum situation. The numbers you provide don't take into account any variables besides flanking. The numbers you provided for your characters accuracy also apply to about half-the classes, but let's go with it being a Wizard EK problem.

You're saying something doesn't work based on a false premise is all.
I'm also still curious about where those casters get Master proficiency in weapons that you mentioned, and if they do, why even pick up fighter multiclass?

i agree, this is level 15, there's going to be a lot of buffs and debuffs around on the playing field.
IMO debuffs to boost your character from viable to great are good. Not so much when going from incompetent to viable.

hmm for me buff/debuffs are supposed to be what makes a fight managable, that if you're low on resources it's hell.

for a boss fight anyway.


What might be useful for people responding to the initial premise is:

- what is your definition of “viable”.

Because it seems to differ from many people responding. What exactly is the threshold for becoming “viable”?

- what is your vision of what an eldritch knight should be able to do? It sounds like it is casting combat buff spells on themselves to boost their power with a weapon? Is that right ?

I ask the second question because your common response to many suggested tactics seems to be something to the effect of (paraphrased) ‘that is wizard behaviour not eldritch knight behaviour”

So once again another case of your definition being different to the people replying. Which is fine but is probably the cause of circular discussions ...


Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
"Caster based Elritch Knights lags behind in accuracy." I'd wholly agree with you that it does, and add that it should.
Why? Someone spending a significant chunk of their class resources to try to get better at fighting with weapons only for the best answer to be for them to not bother at all except against low level enemies seems like a design failure on Paizo's part.

Isn’t Corvo trying to say that the resources are being spent to make the wizard better with a weapon than a standard wizard but not as good as a fighter? Because that would not be a design failure. It would exactly the design intent

So what part are you saying is the design failure ? Have I misunderstood?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
"Caster based Elritch Knights lags behind in accuracy." I'd wholly agree with you that it does, and add that it should.
Why? Someone spending a significant chunk of their class resources to try to get better at fighting with weapons only for the best answer to be for them to not bother at all except against low level enemies seems like a design failure on Paizo's part.

well the martial stuff they do pick up is better than cantrips. you can pick up stuff like power attack, snagging strike, or double shot if ranged.


Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
"Caster based Elritch Knights lags behind in accuracy." I'd wholly agree with you that it does, and add that it should.
Why? Someone spending a significant chunk of their class resources to try to get better at fighting with weapons only for the best answer to be for them to not bother at all except against low level enemies seems like a design failure on Paizo's part.

Just an opinion based on the fact that a caster is more accurate with spells and a martial is more accurate with weapons is all.

The example you gave goes both ways. If my Fighter/wizard focuses more on spells, why can't he catch up to the Wizard/fighter? These example you give always go just one way towards casters getting more but not the other way around.

The whole "I use X more often so I should be better with X than Z." is kind of against how class systems work. This applies to every class since you will always become somehow magically good with weapons you never touched. Your issue might be with how class systems work I feel.

Lanathar wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
"Caster based Elritch Knights lags behind in accuracy." I'd wholly agree with you that it does, and add that it should.
Why? Someone spending a significant chunk of their class resources to try to get better at fighting with weapons only for the best answer to be for them to not bother at all except against low level enemies seems like a design failure on Paizo's part.

Isn’t Corvo trying to say that the resources are being spent to make the wizard better with a weapon than a standard wizard but not as good as a fighter? Because that would not be a design failure. It would exactly the design intent

So what part are you saying is the design failure ? Have I misunderstood?

I think what I'm trying to say that based on that vacuum Accuracy vs Armor, this isn't actually a thread about eldritch knight not working, but that classes who cap on Expert Weapon Proficiencies have lower Accuracy than Martials.

These numbers apply to any and every class that caps at Expert in weapons. Wizard with 20 Dex using a crossbow will have the same accuracy issue. Same for warpriest, cleric etc. The slight exception are buffers with bonuses like Bard and druid gaining a bonus if using own bonus instead of one provided by wildshape. I think the thing here is that no archetype can give these classes Master in a weapon to catch up, probably intentionally. If there was such a specialization, fighter archetype would become less popular I suspect. If a fighter happened to use an expert weapon at the same level with the same stats, I suspect he'd have the same accuracy issue.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
The example you gave goes both ways. If my Fighter/wizard focuses more on spells, why can't he catch up to the Wizard/fighter?

Well that's the thing. The fighter/wizard is getting much more mileage out of their spells here.

My fighter who picked up MC Wizard has a nearly full suite of spells eventually up to 8th level, with no penalties whatsoever on utility spells. he can cast spells like Fly and Haste and Freedom of Movement without any downside and if he does use attack/save based throws he's only rolling at -2 instead of up to -4 for the weapon wielding wizard. Even if I didn't want to go all in, two feats gives me access to eventually three utility spells and two cantrips.

My wizard who picked up a fighter MC gained +1 damage.

Yeah I can definitely see how this is ridiculously skewed in the wizard's favor. It's incredibly problematic.

Quote:
Your issue might be with how class systems work I feel.

No, my issue is just with the specific implementation of certain features Paizo put in the game. PF2 with better proficiency options wouldn't suddenly and mysteriously be a classless game.

You're right though that this is a broader issue than just Eldritch Knights, basically anyone who's stuck at Expert is going to have trouble hitting in difficult encounters at higher levels.

This is just especially problematic for an Eldritch Knight because part of their character concept revolves around weapons. It's also problematic for Sorcerers and Warpriest clerics who have class features that nudge them into making weapon attacks.

Quote:
If there was such a specialization, fighter archetype would become less popular I suspect.

It absolutely would, but I think a large part of that is because Fighter Dedication kind of sucks. It's legitimately just not a good feat. Even for a caster who gets full benefits from the feat the returns aren't amazing and it's absolutely awful for other martials.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:

What might be useful for people responding to the initial premise is:

- what is your definition of “viable”.

Because it seems to differ from many people responding. What exactly is the threshold for becoming “viable”?

- what is your vision of what an eldritch knight should be able to do? It sounds like it is casting combat buff spells on themselves to boost their power with a weapon? Is that right ?

I ask the second question because your common response to many suggested tactics seems to be something to the effect of (paraphrased) ‘that is wizard behaviour not eldritch knight behaviour”

So once again another case of your definition being different to the people replying. Which is fine but is probably the cause of circular discussions ...

I'm now John Lynch, but I have read this thread and all of this has been answered already.

1- Viable means your basic routine every turn can get at least a 50% success rate against a Level+2 enemy. Does not mean it has to be without any buffs or setup, just that you can have it when it matters.

2- This EK is not supposed to blast enemies. They are supposed to setup buffs/debuffs and then go to town in melee after. Their DPR is gonna be with a sword, not fireballs, spells are just a way to enhance the melee.
They are behind a martial, but are able to use spells to close the gap for a fight or two in a linear manner.


Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
The example you gave goes both ways. If my Fighter/wizard focuses more on spells, why can't he catch up to the Wizard/fighter?

Well that's the thing. The fighter/wizard is getting much more mileage out of their spells here.

My fighter who picked up MC Wizard has a nearly full suite of spells eventually up to 8th level, with no penalties whatsoever on utility spells. he can cast spells like Fly and Haste and Freedom of Movement without any downside and if he does use attack/save based throws he's only rolling at -2 instead of up to -4 for the weapon wielding wizard. Even if I didn't want to go all in, two feats gives me access to eventually three utility spells and two cantrips.

My wizard who picked up a fighter MC gained +1 damage.

Yeah I can definitely see how this is ridiculously skewed in the wizard's favor. It's incredibly problematic.

Quote:
Your issue might be with how class systems work I feel.

No, my issue is just with the specific implementation of certain features Paizo put in the game. PF2 with better proficiency options wouldn't suddenly and mysteriously be a classless game.

You're right though that this is a broader issue than just Eldritch Knights, basically anyone who's stuck at Expert is going to have trouble hitting in difficult encounters at higher levels.

This is just especially problematic for an Eldritch Knight because part of their character concept revolves around weapons. It's also problematic for Sorcerers and Warpriest clerics who have class features that nudge them into making weapon attacks.

Quote:
If there was such a specialization, fighter archetype would become less popular I suspect.
It absolutely would, but I think a large part of that is because Fighter Dedication kind of sucks. It's legitimately just not a good feat. Even for a caster who gets full benefits from the feat the returns aren't amazing and it's absolutely awful for other martials.

I was under the impression that a fighter/caster who doesn't invest into Breathd only gets 1 spell slot per level, and if he wants to get the highest, he has to pay a total of 4 feats to get 8th slot at 20th.

It might bake down to personal opinion, but I prefer the caster route because of the 9th and 10th spell slots as well as getting three times the spell slots. Granted, I pay two class feats to stay -2 Attack behind the Fighter/caster. But 2 more class slots, 2 more spell slots per level and 2 more spell levels.

For my home games, I'll likely be reducing enemy AC by 1-2 depending on how things work out, but this boils down to the same thing as armor. Being 1-2 behind = invalidated and does not work. If the topic was about how the casters are behind in accuracy, I'm with you there, but the topic was that the caster/martial does not work, which it does, just not as optimal as a cookie cutter build?


I sense something; a presence I haven't felt since...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As I said in the other thread, you need to campare wizard-fighter with fighter-wizard. The latter is the one you want for smacking bad guys while also casting the occasional spell.

Magus and/or more archetypes will probably get you closer to what you imagine.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackest Sheep wrote:

As I said in the other thread, you need to campare wizard-fighter with fighter-wizard. The latter is the one you want for smacking bad guys while also casting the occasional spell.

Magus and/or more archetypes will probably get you closer to what you im ah imagine.

Future archetypes will also make this concept more realizable, yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that there doesn't seem to be any good Wizard/Fighter builds at this time either. It's like... You pick up a sword but you suck at it so just stick to spells, all you did was throw feats to the garbage. Is there situations when you'll be like "Oh, good thing I invested in some melee prowess?" Maybe just vs Golems or things like that.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

What might be useful for people responding to the initial premise is:

- what is your definition of “viable”.

Because it seems to differ from many people responding. What exactly is the threshold for becoming “viable”?

- what is your vision of what an eldritch knight should be able to do? It sounds like it is casting combat buff spells on themselves to boost their power with a weapon? Is that right ?

I ask the second question because your common response to many suggested tactics seems to be something to the effect of (paraphrased) ‘that is wizard behaviour not eldritch knight behaviour”

So once again another case of your definition being different to the people replying. Which is fine but is probably the cause of circular discussions ...

I'm now John Lynch, but I have read this thread and all of this has been answered already.

1- Viable means your basic routine every turn can get at least a 50% success rate against a Level+2 enemy. Does not mean it has to be without any buffs or setup, just that you can have it when it matters.

2- This EK is not supposed to blast enemies. They are supposed to setup buffs/debuffs and then go to town in melee after. Their DPR is gonna be with a sword, not fireballs, spells are just a way to enhance the melee.
They are behind a martial, but are able to use spells to close the gap for a fight or two in a linear manner.

I am not convinced that definition of "viable" is reasonable in this edition. Wasn't it also mentioned that those with Master proficiency had 45% accuracy. *If* it did then that makes Fighers the only "viable" martial character by this definition. (I haven't done the maths)

And where has this 50% figure being pulled from? Or is it just a perception on what should happen to feel useful?

As to point 2 - by "close the gap" do you mean completely close it so there is no more gap? Or narrow it? I guess the former otherwise you would have said narrow?

I am also not certain that definition of Eldritch Knight is accurate. Just the OPs idea of an Eldritch Knight

To go from the 1E Core rulebook:

*

"Fearsome warriors and spellcasters, eldritch knights are rare among magic-users in their ability to wade into battle alongside fighters, barbarians, and other martial classes. Those who must face eldritch knights in combat fear them greatly, for their versatility on the battlefield is tremendous; against heavily armed and armored opponents they may level crippling spells, while opposing spellcasters meet their ends on an eldritch knight's blade.

Because the road to becoming an eldritch knight requires both martial prowess and arcane power, eldritch knights almost always begin their paths as multiclassed characters, such as fighter/wizards or ranger/sorcerers. They may be found wherever studies of the arcane are as prevalent as martial training.

Role: Eldritch knights blend the abilities of fighting classes and spellcasters, hurling magic at the enemy one moment and hewing down their opponents with steel the next. They are just as comfortable fighting in the thick of combat as they are casting spells at foes while remaining safely behind their compatriots. Their versatility makes them valuable allies when the nature of an upcoming battle is unclear. "

*

That almost exactly describes what Corvo was trying to put in the replies - teleporting and grappling the wizard. And also the other poster who asked why Polar ray wasn't being used to open

Now of course the original post clarifies how solely using buff spells on an EK could be done in 1E with things like Heroism and Stat boosters.

It clearly can't do that as well anymore but was never the design intent of an EK either. Indeed people didn't play EK's in line with the above description (and more in line with the OPs style) because the lack of scaling magic for multiclass 1E characters made it not as effective

But that seems to at least partially explain why what John wants isn't working and why people are responding out of line with what he wants to acheive - different ideas of what an EK means by both other players and designers...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anybody tried to build a Fighter who takes all the wizard casting feats who just avoids casting anything with a DC? Seems like the best way to do a gish who prefers to do business up close.

From the playtest I know a Barbarian who takes the cleric casting feats and casts heal a lot works fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
The example you gave goes both ways. If my Fighter/wizard focuses more on spells, why can't he catch up to the Wizard/fighter?

Well that's the thing. The fighter/wizard is getting much more mileage out of their spells here.

My fighter who picked up MC Wizard has a nearly full suite of spells eventually up to 8th level, with no penalties whatsoever on utility spells. he can cast spells like Fly and Haste and Freedom of Movement without any downside and if he does use attack/save based throws he's only rolling at -2 instead of up to -4 for the weapon wielding wizard. Even if I didn't want to go all in, two feats gives me access to eventually three utility spells and two cantrips.

i feel like pointing out that at several levels you're anywhere from 2-3 levels behind in spell levels, meaning when a wizard gets their 6th level spell, you'll have your third still. the penalty on utility spells is they're not heightened.

you won't get a 4rth level slot until level 12. the later spell levels are all very back loaded.

so from 8th level to 11 you'll only have 4 spells other than cantrips.

the attack stuff IS -6 from the fighter's normal attacks as well, so his DPR is painful, especially if he isn't boosting int.


ChibiNyan wrote:
Is there situations when you'll be like "Oh, good thing I invested in some melee prowess?" Maybe just vs Golems or things like that.

I would say that depends on level of play. The character is probably OK at lower levels, but to be honest, I have not done a real comparison.


Blackest Sheep wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Is there situations when you'll be like "Oh, good thing I invested in some melee prowess?" Maybe just vs Golems or things like that.
I would say that depends on level of play. The character is probably OK at lower levels, but to be honest, I have not done a real comparison.

Personally, the wizard/fighter/champion I'm dishing out is best at harrassing enemy casters. They should have lower fortitude so maneuvers seem viable and appeal to me, so granted it's a niche approach perhaps.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
ChibiNyan wrote:
Lanathar wrote:

What might be useful for people responding to the initial premise is:

- what is your definition of “viable”.

Because it seems to differ from many people responding. What exactly is the threshold for becoming “viable”?

- what is your vision of what an eldritch knight should be able to do? It sounds like it is casting combat buff spells on themselves to boost their power with a weapon? Is that right ?

I ask the second question because your common response to many suggested tactics seems to be something to the effect of (paraphrased) ‘that is wizard behaviour not eldritch knight behaviour”

So once again another case of your definition being different to the people replying. Which is fine but is probably the cause of circular discussions ...

I'm now John Lynch, but I have read this thread and all of this has been answered already.

1- Viable means your basic routine every turn can get at least a 50% success rate against a Level+2 enemy. Does not mean it has to be without any buffs or setup, just that you can have it when it matters.

2- This EK is not supposed to blast enemies. They are supposed to setup buffs/debuffs and then go to town in melee after. Their DPR is gonna be with a sword, not fireballs, spells are just a way to enhance the melee.
They are behind a martial, but are able to use spells to close the gap for a fight or two in a linear manner.

I am not convinced that definition of "viable" is reasonable in this edition. Wasn't it also mentioned that those with Master proficiency had 45% accuracy. *If* it did then that makes Fighers the only "viable" martial character by this definition. (I haven't done the maths)

And where has this 50% figure being pulled from? Or is it just a perception on what should happen to feel useful?

It really isn't a reasonable definition of viable. Not against a level+2 for when there are so many ways to bump the math in your favor. You go by this definition of viable and we're very close to getting back to PF1's "I hit on a 2 (or maybe a 4 if we're being conservative)" when you actually DO apply tactics, and suddenly everything is getting mowed down by attack spam like in PF1.

Lowering the base success rate and making level difference between party and foe actually meaningful and incentivising actual tactical play and making it effective REALLY isn't a bad thing.


It sounds like John Lynch feels that a caster first gish is 2 points behind in attack and would like a 3rd to 4th levelish spell to be able to counter this in some fashion for the duration of 1 to 2 combats. I think it is reasonable to think about what the spell option would look like so that it stays balanced when applied to the primary fighter, which will be the larger balance concern. This is probably doable in the not too distant future...

...but especially up around 15th level, I think i’d Rather have the caster/martial gish on my side then the martial caster gish because a wizard/fighter or wizard/champion has a lot of great ways to occupy the bosses actions and be a thorn in its side than just having good AC and attack.

At the same time I think pointing out a build that is close, but not quite what you want it to be is a great thing to do in these boards. You get ideas for how you can get closer and you give the Developers ideas for expanded future content.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also got the impression that the intended tactic for PCs against "boss monsters" (which the PCs very likely outnumber) is more about "harrying, debuffing, wasting their actions or denying them actions" than "smashing face."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

That definition of viable is a joke, it would argue a character who hits less often with a proportionally higher damage bonus isn't viable despite having identical DPR numbers. It also doesn't account for the fact that "against a single high AC target" is hardly the only encounter that matters, this character would do fairly well against groups of at/below level monsters with spells like fireball, cone of cold, and can target a higher AC monster's saves.

I think that in a healthy game, the role of the gish is versatility beyond a fighter, at the expense of sheer fightiness, this thread reads like the "problem" is that Paizo achieved that.

I expect to see other options come out in the future that lets characters transgress that if they choose, or present other gish takes, but them's the dice you got.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I also got the impression that the intended tactic for PCs against "boss monsters" (which the PCs very likely outnumber) is more about "harrying, debuffing, wasting their actions or denying them actions" than "smashing face."

VERY much this. I threw level+4 encounters at my parties pretty often when I was using the PT rules, and this is very much the best way to go.

As an aside, the last boss my party had was a level+4 custom-built boss that had high stats compared to the party and also made it hard to get in and land hits by utilizing difficult terrain, forced movement, and long reach AoOs.

It was one of the very best boss fights they've had, and they had a blast despite most of the characters needing a 15-18 to hit unmodified. Instead of spamming attacks until its HP crumbled (which PF1 thoroughly taught us is what happens when the baseline to-hit is too high), they had a real struggle of getting around its defenses and buffing the party while trying to land debuffs, even short ones, to butter him up so they could actually get those hits in and start making progress against its HP.

The boss fight would have been rubbish under John Lynch's idea of PF2 Wizard/Fighter baseline, because there wouldn't have been nearly the reason to actually use tactics. Just another block of HP to plow down.

At least to some degree. Having monsters actually have a good chance of evasion is really important.


The-Magic-Sword wrote:

That definition of viable is a joke, it would argue a character who hits less often with a proportionally higher damage bonus isn't viable despite having identical DPR numbers. It also doesn't account for the fact that "against a single high AC target" is hardly the only encounter that matters, this character would do fairly well against groups of at/below level monsters with spells like fireball, cone of cold, and can target a higher AC monster's saves.

I think that in a healthy game, the role of the gish is versatility beyond a fighter, at the expense of sheer fightiness, this thread reads like the "problem" is that Paizo achieved that.

I expect to see other options come out in the future that lets characters transgress that if they choose, or present other gish takes, but them's the dice you got.

I can't comment on DPR since that didn't come up in original post, as it's focus wasn't actually the gestalt nature of the gish path, but that it lagged behind in accuracy, which is a wider situation than the hybrid, and applies to any class that is capped at Expert. And this is even based on a minmaxed build that pumps every boost into str at level 1 to 15th to cap it at 20, and would apply to a full dex path with ranged weaponry as well. A bard with a bow would struggle with the same accuracy.

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I also got the impression that the intended tactic for PCs against "boss monsters" (which the PCs very likely outnumber) is more about "harrying, debuffing, wasting their actions or denying them actions" than "smashing face."

That's kinda what I liked a lot about the classes now, they got so many options and a lot include some sort of condition access. Both fighters and rogues can apply Feared via strikes, and anyone can now apply poisons as the day starts without poisoning themselves and drooling into the floor because their class didn't come with Poison Use(EX).

It's fair to say I think, that crowd control is better than PF1 core and it'll likely only get better. I'll personally be saving a few alchemical items such as tanglefoot bags for big baddies.

-
It seems it boils to the white room vacuum math and 1-2AC or 1-2Accuracy lag invalidating things because math is so tight. Which makes me wonder. Is a raging barbarian invalidated next to another martial because of the AC hit even though they have the same AC base in say, medium armor?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
It also doesn't account for the fact that "against a single high AC target" is hardly the only encounter that matters, this character would do fairly well against groups of at/below level monsters with spells like fireball, cone of cold, and can target a higher AC monster's saves.

So against single powerful enemies, the gish should forgo using their weapon and focus on debuffing and support in order to let the better fighters lay on the hurt... and against groups of weaker enemies the gish should forgo using their weapon to focus on spells like fireball and cone of cold.

You did a really good job articulating the core of the OP's problem for someone who thinks it's a 'joke'.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Some thoughts on your build:
-Being primarily a caster, it seems natural that fighting bosses would require you to go to your strongest aspect. If you want to use weapons on bosses, you should use a martial chassis.
Your attack is solid for a second attack. That's essentially what it is, with spells being primary.

-I respect that you understand your PC's hit points require Stoneskin (etc). I also respect your devotion to Medicine, Con, & Wis.

-As pointed out by another, you can do lots of really cool combat tricks like Fly which most other martials can't. If you look at how much your knight can do across the combat spectrum (rather than just DPR vs. one type of encounter), I think you'll find your builds works. You just have to patch that "boss fight" hole.

-Magic Missile: Having a tough time vs. AC or saves? Monster doesn't have a weakness you can exploit well or it has good resistances? If yes, then all the more valuable Magic Missile becomes. This is not just in the obvious way of circumventing defenses, but also because hit points skew lower when monsters have higher defenses, so the missiles are a larger % of their total.
We called them boss killers in the playtest. Waste of magic against minions or brutes, but if you need to crack open a hard shell...
And if it is a brutish boss with lots of h.p., odds are you can hit it fine.

-Contrast this with you saying your build does well hitting minions, and you also have minion-busting spells. Get boss-busting spells, ones that assume they'll save, or avoid a save altogether.

Some thoughts on a different build:
-You've spent too many feats on armor IMO. Assuming you're focusing on only a weapon or two, Champion would fit your build better and you could possibly pick up a weapon (or several) using ancestry. Champion MCD needs Cha so stretches out your stats, so maybe go Sorcerer (which I think also gives you more flexibility with in combat spellcasting).

-Maybe Sorcerer, maybe lower Int Wizard. So few of your spells require saves that it wouldn't hurt too much (as long as you keep your martial attack stat at max). 18 Int vs. 21 Int is only one plus in Int vs. 3 pluses elsewhere.

-Judging by your spell selection & main complaint, I think a warrior chassis suits your build better. As somebody mentioned, all those spell buffs you're looking for come prepackaged in warriors. Their hit points & armor proficiency mirror what you're getting out of Stoneskin & Energy Aegis. Strip your spell list of spells that only help you catch up to warriors and see what remains and if you can pull that off w/ Wiz MCD. Also helpful is not needing to spend actions buffing or having limited durations.

-Druid/MCD warrior: Just thinking how many of your spells are on the Primal list and Druids have more h.p. as base. It wouldn't help your "not hitting bosses" issue nor would it give Magic Missiles, but it would shift your casting stat to Wisdom (still keeping Medicine high), freeing up a bit for Dex w/ that hide armor. You could keep much of the same flavor simply with attitude & spell selection.

However it goes, have fun.
Cheers


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
It also doesn't account for the fact that "against a single high AC target" is hardly the only encounter that matters, this character would do fairly well against groups of at/below level monsters with spells like fireball, cone of cold, and can target a higher AC monster's saves.

So against single powerful enemies, the gish should forgo using their weapon and focus on debuffing and support in order to let the better fighters lay on the hurt... and against groups of weaker enemies the gish should forgo using their weapon to focus on spells like fireball and cone of cold.

You did a really good job articulating the core of the OP's problem for someone who thinks it's a 'joke'.

Doesn't this go both ways though? A fighter/wizard will be behind on spell proficiency and spell levels. Against the big bad villain, he should use his fancy strikes instead of a fireball that's behind in levels by quite a bit, and he only got one of those slots available unless he took Breathd?

Fighter/wizard better at weapons backed up with spells.
Wizard/fighter better at spells backed up with weapons.


Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Fighter/wizard better at weapons backed up with spells.

Wizard/fighter better at spells backed up with weapons.

Yes, and since MC archetypes do not give up enough of the class, you cannot lean deeper into the other class.

I think that a fighter-wizard would be closer to what the OP was envisioning - smacking big bads while slinging spells. And also that the "true" gish will be its own class, like magus.


Blackest Sheep wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Fighter/wizard better at weapons backed up with spells.

Wizard/fighter better at spells backed up with weapons.

Yes, and since MC archetypes do not give up enough of the class, you cannot lean deeper into the other class.

I think that a fighter-wizard would be closer to what the OP was envisioning - smacking big bads while slinging spells. And also that the "true" gish will be its own class, like magus.

If I recall, magus was close to keeping up with BAB of martials back then, but nowhere near the pure casters? While Eldritch Knight was a nice prestige, wasn't it kind of overshadowed by how magus streamlined it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
It also doesn't account for the fact that "against a single high AC target" is hardly the only encounter that matters, this character would do fairly well against groups of at/below level monsters with spells like fireball, cone of cold, and can target a higher AC monster's saves.

So against single powerful enemies, the gish should forgo using their weapon and focus on debuffing and support in order to let the better fighters lay on the hurt... and against groups of weaker enemies the gish should forgo using their weapon to focus on spells like fireball and cone of cold.

You did a really good job articulating the core of the OP's problem for someone who thinks it's a 'joke'.

Doesn't this go both ways though? A fighter/wizard will be behind on spell proficiency and spell levels. Against the big bad villain, he should use his fancy strikes instead of a fireball that's behind in levels by quite a bit, and he only got one of those slots available unless he took Breathd?

Fighter/wizard better at weapons backed up with spells.
Wizard/fighter better at spells backed up with weapons.

Not to mention the conveniently-ignored fact that you can utilize both effectively in a round, especially if you have Haste. Against a boss, you can debuff/support and then swing at the boss. Against mooks, you can throw out an AoE and still take a swing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
It also doesn't account for the fact that "against a single high AC target" is hardly the only encounter that matters, this character would do fairly well against groups of at/below level monsters with spells like fireball, cone of cold, and can target a higher AC monster's saves.

So against single powerful enemies, the gish should forgo using their weapon and focus on debuffing and support in order to let the better fighters lay on the hurt... and against groups of weaker enemies the gish should forgo using their weapon to focus on spells like fireball and cone of cold.

You did a really good job articulating the core of the OP's problem for someone who thinks it's a 'joke'.

The weapon should be treated as an additive with bespell weapon (whether Wizard or Sorcerer) in this instance, you *are* dropping a fireball, or cone of cold or debuffing, which costs two of your actions on your turn, then you're following up with a single weapon strike for the third action when you're already in melee (or under the effects of haste/ quickening). OP's problem is that they want their magic to make them as effective at just hitting things as a martial class, which it is roughly 10% less effective at doing based off their own calculations.

I'm saying that the Fighting Wizard Gish functions, but that they need to adapt their playstyle for the way it's designed to work in the game that they're playing. Rather than turning on the blinders and only rating it according to how it was played in ye olden days.

I articulated their problem well, because I understood what their problem is.

51 to 100 of 153 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Eldritch Knight Wizards appear to not work All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.