D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Eldritch knight abilities?

[Mike Sullivan]

If you are going to make a patch, it should be interesting as well as useful.

No, it shouldn't. I don't want a Prestige Class that happens to enjoy good spell progression and good BAB. I want a Fighter/Wizard. That's it. That's all. A good Prestige Class which happens to have both a martial side and a spellcasting side serves a fundamentally different role in the game than a patch that allows a Fighter/Wizard.

That you may not want a Fighter/Wizard, and want a good Prestige Class, is not the same thing as saying that the former role should not exist in the game. There are PrC's which serve the role that you seem to want -- Spellsword, for example. That's fine. They're out there. But that's not what the EK is for.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Yes, it allows a 19th level fighter to suddenly become a 10th level wizard, too, with the addition of a single wizard level.

But at 20th level, 10th level wizard spellcasting is minimal.

Arguably true. But it's inarguably true that, at 20th level, becoming a 10th level Wizard (or a 9th level one) is better than +1 BAB, +1d10 hit points, and one feat.

Also, the prospect of a 19th level Cleric becoming a 19th level Cleric/15th level Wizard is more problematic.

I've seen other versions of your proposed "solution" which limit the "virtual" levels in the spellcasting class to twice the actual levels in the spellcasting class -- so a 19th level Fighter who gained one level of Wizard would cast as a 2nd level Wizard. That's somewhat better, but the whole thing is still clunky enough to qualify as a "lame patch."

 

[LokiDR]

No, it shouldn't. I don't want a Prestige Class that happens to enjoy good spell progression and good BAB. I want a Fighter/Wizard. That's it. That's all. A good Prestige Class which happens to have both a martial side and a spellcasting side serves a fundamentally different role in the game than a patch that allows a Fighter/Wizard.

That you may not want a Fighter/Wizard, and want a good Prestige Class, is not the same thing as saying that the former role should not exist in the game. There are PrC's which serve the role that you seem to want -- Spellsword, for example. That's fine. They're out there. But that's not what the EK is for.

The goals of EK and Spellsword are the same: make a poor multiclass option into a decent option. The difference is that Spellsword is weak but nifty. EK is on par, but boring. Those two attempts should be brought together to create an interesting and effective combination.

If you want fighter wizard with nothing else, multiclass. It doesn't make you an effective character, but that is what you want. If you instead want spellcasting and martial prowess together, make an interesting and balanced PrC. The concept of "fighter/wizard" is that you are good at using magic and martial tatics. So the abilities should support that. EK is missing at least one key element: armor is a key part of the fighter. Tossing it out makes a possibly balanced class but prevents a key part of the concept.

I think it fails to cover the flavor of the cocept. EK is the same as multiclassing fighter, wizard, warrior. That is lame when they could be more.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

The goals of EK and Spellsword are the same: make a poor multiclass option into a decent option. The difference is that Spellsword is weak but nifty. EK is on par, but boring. Those two attempts should be brought together to create an interesting and effective combination.

I don't know the Spellsword well, so I won't comment on its power level. If it's over-weak, it should obviously be brought up-to-par.

I will speak to the role of PrC's in general: They are supposed to add a flavourful, interesting role to the game (ideally one which is codified in the game world), which can not be trivially reproduced through standard multiclassing. If a PrC happens to overlap slightly with a multiclassing niche, that's supposed to be coincidence, and the PrC should occupy a narrower role.

Thus, no, the Spellsword is not supposed to prop up a poor multiclass option.

The EK is not a good PrC, because it is not designed to do the things that a PrC does. Instead, it is supposed to serve as a systems patch for a failed multiclassing role.

As such, the EK fails in its duty, the less generic and more flavourful that it gets.

If you want fighter wizard with nothing else, multiclass. It doesn't make you an effective character, but that is what you want.

No, what I want is an effective Fighter/Wizard. Not an "effective member of a particular order of martial magic users from the Southwest corner of D'ran who use the philosophical beliefs about their ancestor spirits as the cornerstone to their fighting style," a frikkin' effective Fighter/Wizard. Period. End of story. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

I acknowledge that some GM's, of course, feel that Fighter/Wizard shouldn't be an effective multiclass, but I'm not playing with them. I'm playing in a game that sees no reason why it shouldn't be just as reasonable a choice, with tradeoffs and ups and downs, for a Fighter level 7 to take his next level as a Fighter, as a Rogue, or as a Wizard, or for a Rogue 2/Sorcerer 2 to take his next level as Fighter, Rogue, or Sorcerer.

"Normal" Prestige classes, with idiosyncratic style and flavor, may or may not have a place in my game, but they do NOT fill the role of patching multiclassing. Multiclassing patches should be as generic as multiclassing, because that's what they're trying to replace.

Now. I actually would go with a different clunky, lame patch (a variant of the one that Will mentioned), rather than the Eldritch Knight/Mystic Theurge/Arcane Trickster patch that 3.5 presents, because for all that the "virtual spellcasting levels" are a clunky, lame patch, they're a more versatile one than the "generic PrC's patch."

But none of that means that the generic PrC's "ought" to be regular PrC's.

 

[LokiDR]

I will speak to the role of PrC's in general: They are supposed to add a flavourful, interesting role to the game (ideally one which is codified in the game world), which can not be trivially reproduced through standard multiclassing. If a PrC happens to overlap slightly with a multiclassing niche, that's supposed to be coincidence, and the PrC should occupy a narrower role.

Thus, no, the Spellsword is not supposed to prop up a poor multiclass option.

The EK is not a good PrC, because it is not designed to do the things that a PrC does. Instead, it is supposed to serve as a systems patch for a failed multiclassing role.

As such, the EK fails in its duty, the less generic and more flavourful that it gets.

Yes, the Spellsword is supposed to prop up a weak multiclass option. That is whole concept of the class. Fighting and magic, together, something that is otherwise weak.

The designers sited 3 reasons for PrC when they talked about the new PrC in the DMG. The first was represent some group in the game, ala Red Mage. The second was specialization, ala Shadowdancer. The third was making poor multiclass option viable, see mystic thurge, arcane trickster, arcane archer, and eldrich knight.

No, what I want is an effective Fighter/Wizard. Not an "effective member of a particular order of martial magic users from the Southwest corner of D'ran who use the philosophical beliefs about their ancestor spirits as the cornerstone to their fighting style," a frikkin' effective Fighter/Wizard. Period. End of story. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

Making the combination work is more than adding abilities faster. Factors like armor mean you will never be able to use abilities together effectively. If you want that handicap, you are welcome to it. Most people I know don't. Hence the problem inherant in EK. You are not really combining fighter and wizard. You plastering them together.

Not every PrC needs or should have a group. This is one that doesn't. But they need to be interesting in the same way that other classes are.

I acknowledge that some GM's, of course, feel that Fighter/Wizard shouldn't be an effective multiclass, but I'm not playing with them. I'm playing in a game that sees no reason why it shouldn't be just as reasonable a choice, with tradeoffs and ups and downs, for a Fighter level 7 to take his next level as a Fighter, as a Rogue, or as a Wizard, or for a Rogue 2/Sorcerer 2 to take his next level as Fighter, Rogue, or Sorcerer.

So go re-write the multiclass rules.

"Normal" Prestige classes, with idiosyncratic style and flavor, may or may not have a place in my game, but they do NOT fill the role of patching multiclassing. Multiclassing patches should be as generic as multiclassing, because that's what they're trying to replace.

Bringing disseparate ideas, weak mage and strong fighter, should require the character to work. So, now you either do it with style or not.

Now. I actually would go with a different clunky, lame patch (a variant of the one that Will mentioned), rather than the Eldritch Knight/Mystic Theurge/Arcane Trickster patch that 3.5 presents, because for all that the "virtual spellcasting levels" are a clunky, lame patch, they're a more versatile one than the "generic PrC's patch."

I agree.

But none of that means that the generic PrC's "ought" to be regular PrC's.

There is a difference between "generic" and "stupidly bland". I think EK lies clearly on the latter half of that line.

 

[Tar-Edhel]

No, what I want is an effective Fighter/Wizard. Not an "effective member of a particular order of martial magic users from the Southwest corner of D'ran who use the philosophical beliefs about their ancestor spirits as the cornerstone to their fighting style," a frikkin' effective Fighter/Wizard. Period. End of story. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?

I love your order of martial magic-users. What are the pre-reqs?

Seriously, I don't see your point. WotC gave you a class that was better than multiclassing while not being that different. The EK and MT are not exciting? So what! They do what they were meant to do: make multi classing viable.

You might argue that they didn't go far enough, making it better but not viable still. Maybe. I haven't done the maths since I'm not interested in multiclassing or going EK or MT.

Call them Special Core classes if they don't reflect what you view as 'prestige'. But if what you want to play is a wiz/fighter multiclass, EK is the way to go.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Yes, the Spellsword is supposed to prop up a weak multiclass option. That is whole concept of the class. Fighting and magic, together, something that is otherwise weak.

No, it's really not.

Even if Fighter/Wizard multiclassing worked just fine, there would still be a point to a Spellsword -- it's a specific, flavourful implementation of a martial arcane caster. Its existance is independent of whether or not there are other viable martial arcane casters.

The designers sited 3 reasons for PrC when they talked about the new PrC in the DMG. The first was represent some group in the game, ala Red Mage. The second was specialization, ala Shadowdancer. The third was making poor multiclass option viable, see mystic thurge, arcane trickster, arcane archer, and eldrich knight.

Yes. And the third category is a new use for PrC's, and those new PrC's don't work the way that other PrC's do.

Making the combination work is more than adding abilities faster. Factors like armor mean you will never be able to use abilities together effectively.

Uh, stuff and nonsense. Rogues have lots of abilities that are degraded by armor use. Fighter/Rogue is a totally viable multiclass. Second Edition Fighter/Mages couldn't use armor at all. Second Edition Fighter/Mages were perfectly powerful -- in fact, many would argue too powerful.

That two classes have bits that rub up against each other poorly doesn't mean that they can't effectively multiclass, nor that any potential blending of the classes must unify every last class feature.

If you want that handicap, you are welcome to it.

If you want a standard PrC (not a "patching a poor multiclass choice" one) that implements an ASF reduction at the cost of other abilities, you are welcome to that. That doesn't mean that the EK should have it.

Most people I know don't. Hence the problem inherant in EK. You are not really combining fighter and wizard. You plastering them together.

Oh please. Talk about making a mountain out a molehill. The Mystic Theurge doesn't get ASF reduction, even though heavy armor is a Cleric class ability. Is it "not really combining cleric and wizard"?

Not every PrC needs or should have a group.

I disagree -- in the ideal, every PrC should have a group (not necessarily a formalized organization, but a group). Of course, sometimes we must bend the ideal to get the game to work at all.

This is one that doesn't. But they need to be interesting in the same way that other classes are.

You're the one who's complaining incessently that something which is just a Wizard + Fighter can not possibly be flavourful enough, ad nauseum. EK is demonstrably interesting in the same way that other classes (specifically, core classes) are.

So go re-write the multiclass rules.

If I were smarter, I would. But I can't find a good way to rewrite the multiclass rules in such a way as to elegantly, flexibly handle arcane caster multiclassing, and retain the elegence and flexibility of non-caster 3.0 spellcasting.

The R&D team apparently feels the same way I do.

Bringing disseparate ideas, weak mage and strong fighter, should require the character to work. So, now you either do it with style or not.

I have no idea what this means.

I agree. [ed: He agrees that the "virtual casting levels" idea is better than the PrC idea.]

That said, I can understand why the R&D team didn't want to go with that concept -- it's a really clunky, difficult-to-explain concept to drop into the game. I think it works better, but it's ugly. The PrC route is more elegant, if less versatile.

There is a difference between "generic" and "stupidly bland". I think EK lies clearly on the latter half of that line.

I take it you ban Fighters and Wizards in your games, then?

 

[James McMurray]

Making the combination work is more than adding abilities faster. Factors like armor mean you will never be able to use abilities together effectively. If you want that handicap, you are welcome to it. Most people I know don't. Hence the problem inherant in EK. You are not really combining fighter and wizard. You plastering them together.

Yeah, because lack of armor is a real handicap.

Unless of course you decide to get Bracers of Armor, Mage Armor, Shield Spell, a Mithral Buckler, or any other of a ton of options available to a Fighter / Wizard without having to resort to a prestige class that grants ASF reduction.

If you don't feel that the EK is flavorful enough, instead of telling others to rewrite the multiclassing rules (a fairly daunting task) why don't you instead rewrite the flavor of the EK (for your campaign only of course)?

 

[Dash Dannigan]

EK Requirements?

Incidentally enough, might I inquire as to what requirements need to be met to qualify for taking the EK PrC?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Or even just using still spell, or spells which don't require somatic components.

Which I believe was the primary complaint about the spellsword - that you were better off just getting still spell and some levels in fighter...