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

[Chun-tzu]

Re: EK Requirements?

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

3rd-level arcane spells and proficiency in martial weapons. It's been implied that it's all martial weapons, but I don't know if that's been confirmed yet.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think it could be made to work as a front-line fighter type. (Especially if, as I understood from comments on Andy Collins' boards, EKs can cast in light and medium armor w/out spell failure (hello mithral fullplate/mithral breastplate)). AC might be problematic but could potentially be boosted by careful application of Alter Self (Yuan Ti Abomination has reach and good natural armor; and Sahaugin have good natural armor). The shield spell would provide an AC boost for the EK who wields a two handed weapon. AC could also be made less relevant by spells like Blink, Stoneskin (works well combined with Fire Shield), and Improved Invisibility. Combining Blink or Improved Invisibility with Expert Tactician would also help to make up for the weakness in BAB.

Of course, after using all the right spells, the EK still wouldn't be MUCH better of a fighter than the single classed fighter--and each round he casts a defensive spell is a round he isn't attacking (possibly excepting the combination of blink/imp invis and expert tactician which would allow cast+expert tactician attack in the same round) and he can only cast so many spells per day. . . .

Sounds to me like you would probably want to be an archer or other support fighter.

A Fighter 1, Wizard 5, EK 4 would be casting as an 8th level Wizard at 10th level, and would have a BAB of +7/+2 (3 below a Fighter 10's +10/+5). Hit points and BAB wouldn't be too far away from a Rogue's, and AC probably wouldn't be too far off either. Support fighter.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I think it could be made to work as a front-line fighter type. (Especially if, as I understood from comments on Andy Collins' boards, EKs can cast in light and medium armor w/out spell failure (hello mithral fullplate/mithral breastplate)).

I believe it has been confirmed that they can NOT. That's certainly the understanding that both LokiDR and I are talking from.

AC might be problematic but could potentially be boosted by careful application of Alter Self (Yuan Ti Abomination has reach and good natural armor; and Sahaugin have good natural armor). The shield spell would provide an AC boost for the EK who wields a two handed weapon. AC could also be made less relevant by spells like Blink, Stoneskin (works well combined with Fire Shield), and Improved Invisibility. Combining Blink or Improved Invisibility with Expert Tactician would also help to make up for the weakness in BAB.

I suspect that an EK could be built for front-line fighting. I'm willing to put money on it being a simpler, easier build for them to go support fighter.

 

[jasin]

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)?

Actually, I hardly mind the lack of armour at all. I like mobile lightly armoured Dex-types for my fighters anyway.

And I don't mind the blandness (much).

But I don't like that the class gets nothing to call it's own. The arcane trickster has been mentioned as a PrC of the same type as the eldritch knight ("system patch"), and I agree... but I think AT is much better for its ranged legerdemain: a unique ability that is equally roguish and arcane.

Eldritch knight is not a good warrior-mage. He's an OK warrior, who's also an OK mage. Which is still something I'd be willing to play, and a much better solution than a straight Ftr/Wiz multiclass, who was a crappy warrior and a crappy mage, but still, I think they should've gotten abilities that *merge* fighting and wizardry into a single whole, like the arcane trickster did (for thievery and wizardry).

The Raumathari battlemage from Unapproachable East is pretty similar to the EN, but I like the class as a whole better, despite it being to wizardy and not enough fightery for my current needs. Because it gets its own special abilities, which are linked both to fighting and magic (using a weapon instead of material components, channeling attack spells through weapons...).

 

[drnuncheon]

Eldritch knight is not a good warrior-mage. He's an OK warrior, who's also an OK mage. Which is still something I'd be willing to play, and a much better solution than a straight Ftr/Wiz multiclass, who was a crappy warrior and a crappy mage, but still, I think they should've gotten abilities that *merge* fighting and wizardry into a single whole, like the arcane trickster did (for thievery and wizardry).

So, you want a Spellsword.
(They're in Tome & Blood.)

J

 

[LokiDR]

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.

I will point out that the original information about the 3.5 revision stated that an updated Spellsword was the PrC being put into the DMG.

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.

No, it is not new. Arcane archer.

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 they effectively multiclass, why do you need a patch? Your need for a change to make the mage/fighter work suggests that the two classes don't multiclass and therefore you need more to make it work. I think that "more" is not simplely more abilities faster. At any rate, that is boring.

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.

You keep inventing this idea of "standard" PrC which does not match the designers. If the PrC is going to make the combination possible, it should do it in a compelling way. Arcane trickster is a good example of a combination that works but is also unique. EK is just boring.

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"?

The cleric still has his primary abilities: spells and turning. He can go all martial if he takes still spell. Likewise, some amount of ASF reduction would mean the EK would lose the heavist armor, but would still be able to be "fighter like" by wearing some armor. The lack of the armor means you have work above and beyond the PrC to be a "typical fighter and wizard" at the same time.

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.

That is not the ideal. There are far too many PrC that oppose that concept for that to be ideal. Tempest, for example, is a character focusing on dual wielding. There is no need for a group, the character is just specializing. Group-based PrC are just 1 of 3 different PrC types.

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.

No, it is just a copy. You might as well just let the mage/fighter have more levels and stick them in fighter and wizard. There is nothing new here. Nothing compelling. Nothing more than a system patch. Aracane trickster, spellsword, and arcane archer all combine other classes without being that boring. A good PrC has flavor and balance. Remove either one of those, and the PrC loses it point.

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

Have you read Oriental Adventures? There is a samuri class in there which is nearly the same as fighter. Those two classes should never exist in the same game. This just isn't reason enough for both.

EK is just a compressed copy. The solution isn't a PrC, the system patch you mention. That is wrong. If they are going to make a PrC as a system patch, they should do a complete job. Both system patch and a PrC with flavor. The eldrich knight is a cheap hack that smells of lazy.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Eldritch knight is not a good warrior-mage. He's an OK warrior, who's also an OK mage. Which is still something I'd be willing to play, and a much better solution than a straight Ftr/Wiz multiclass, who was a crappy warrior and a crappy mage, but still, I think they should've gotten abilities that *merge* fighting and wizardry into a single whole, like the arcane trickster did (for thievery and wizardry).

The game needs generic classes, though.

Yeah, sure, if I'm interested in playing a melee, one-hand-open fighter, I could play a spellsword or a whatever-battle-mage. If I wanted to play a character who dresses up in heavy armor and casts spells in the thick of things, maybe I'd be interested in Loki's hypothetical ASF-reduction-class.

But what about my buff-based Ranger (Archer)/Sorcerer, who uses mobility spells and buffing spells to get into good sniping positions and then chills there? Or my reach-based Fighter/Wizard, who wants to stand behind the lines in a fairly large party and use a reach weapon to contribute to melee, and then use his Wizard spells entirely to increase his out-of-combat role? Or an unarmed Monk/Wizard (which, yes, I understand that the EK will probably not provide for) who is really uninterested in using a weapon to channel spells/replace material components, or getting an ASF reduction? What about the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard who wants to use Wizard abilities to selectively enhance either his Fighter or Rogue role on a given day?

Traditional PrC's (which are narrower than core classes and specialize in some particular, flavorful niche) aren't going to provide a replacement for effective arcane-caster multiclassing, in that they can not and should not provide the versatility that the broad, generic core classes allow.

 

[James McMurray]

What Mike said.

 

[Technik4]

The cleric still has his primary abilities: spells and turning. He can go all martial if he takes still spell. Likewise, some amount of ASF reduction would mean the EK would lose the heavist armor, but would still be able to be "fighter like" by wearing some armor. The lack of the armor means you have work above and beyond the PrC to be a "typical fighter and wizard" at the same time.

The lack of armor means the typical fighter/wizard should be willing to accept a "small" amount of Arcane Spell Failure. I mean, whats 10%? How much will that impact a character? Most people treat any arcane spell failure as if it was 100%. Granted, it may come at inopportune times, and it may be irritating to roll the percentile all the time, but to me it seems like a fun archtype. And for those times when you NEED a spell to go off, a prudent fighter/wizard would wear armor and have still spell memorized on the spell. Whats the problem exactly?

Heck it might be fun, with such a character, to occasionally don really heavy armor (even the heaviest only has what, 40% ASF? - your spells on average will still work more than half the time!) if the situation warrants. Does that mean you arent a wizard anymore? Nah, you can still break out some wands or chance the ASF, but mostly you should be playing a support-fighter role, or possibly a front-line fighter role (note: you wont last as long as someone with more HD).

There is nothing new here. Nothing compelling. Nothing more than a system patch

Before:

Ftr4/Wiz12 - I'm a fighter/wizard! I'm 2 spell levels behind everyone else...and -4 on spell penetration checks for my level..but I have martial weapon use - but only BAB +10/+4! I have 3 bonus fighter feats including weapon spec!

Ftr1/Wiz5/ElK10 - I'm a fighter wizard. I cast spells 1 level behind and -2 on spell penetration checks for my level, but my BAB is +13/+8/+3. I have 2 bonus fighter feats.

Well clearly its "new" in that it seems like a lot more viable of a character. Its just as compelling as anything else, the character makes compelling choices based on what happens in the game. The mechanics behind representing the character aren't the compelling part of the game for most people. I could rattle off some boring arcane archers, boring because their players played them boring. Similarly I could tell you about some interesting characters that had martial weapons and arcane powers, characters with conflicts, interesting reactions, etc.

I don't want compelling game mechanics, I want balanced game mechanics.

Have you read Oriental Adventures? There is a samuri class in there which is nearly the same as fighter. Those two classes should never exist in the same game. This just isn't reason enough for both

Actually they are "supposed" to exist together, as written in OA. Samurai represented a special class, not unlike a paladin, which was both an order and a caste unto itself. Fighter was still useful to display a high level bandit, a weapons master, or someone with martial prowess who wasn't a samurai. While the concepts of the mechanics are the same (d10 hp, good BAB, bonus feats) the reasons for playing them and the stories woven from them differ.

Technik

 

[jasin]

The game needs generic classes, though.

Yeah, sure, if I'm interested in playing a melee, one-hand-open fighter, I could play a spellsword or a whatever-battle-mage. If I wanted to play a character who dresses up in heavy armor and casts spells in the thick of things, maybe I'd be interested in Loki's hypothetical ASF-reduction-class.

But what about my buff-based Ranger (Archer)/Sorcerer, who uses mobility spells and buffing spells to get into good sniping positions and then chills there? Or my reach-based Fighter/Wizard, who wants to stand behind the lines in a fairly large party and use a reach weapon to contribute to melee, and then use his Wizard spells entirely to increase his out-of-combat role?

IMO, they too would be better off with an eldritch knight that merged fighting and spellcasting into a single whole, instead of just giving out an acceptable amount of fighting and an acceptable amount of spellcasting.

I'm not objecting generic, I'm objecting the fact that the class offers nothing new.

Or an unarmed Monk/Wizard (which, yes, I understand that the EK will probably not provide for) who is really uninterested in using a weapon to channel spells/replace material components, or getting an ASF reduction? What about the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard who wants to use Wizard abilities to selectively enhance either his Fighter or Rogue role on a given day?

As you say, the Mnk/Wiz isn't particularly well served by the EK either. The Ftr/Rog/Wiz could take some levels in EK and some in arcane trickster.

Your examples make it sound as if the EK is supposed to solve the problem of weak arcane-caster/not-arcane-caster multiclasses. It's not, and it won't. It's supposed to solve the problem of weak arcane-caster/warrior-type multiclasses. It's not intended for a Mnk/Wiz or a Ftr/Rog/Wiz who focuses equally on fighting and rogue stuff. It's intended for a warrior/caster, so why not give them some warrior/caster abilties, instead of just warrior abilities and caster abilities? It could still be plenty generic: v. arcane trickster.