D&D 3.x [3.5] Eldritch knight abilities?

[Henry]

Also, let's please try to be nicer to each other. This isn't an issue to come to virtual blows over (but then, what D&D issue is?)

 

[LokiDR]

No, Loki, I really didn't. I may not have read your mind, but I've consistently responded to what you said on this thread. You harped on, and on, and on, and on about ASF reduction. I mentioned in a throw-away comment that I wasn't really talking about your harping on, and on, and on, and on about ASF reduction -- but that I was responding to another poster altogether!

Now, that you've decided that when you harped on, and on, and on about ASF reduction, what you really meant was that you were harping on, and on, and on about some unnamed "flavor" ability that you haven't come up with any other examples for, it's:

I have confused you, and I'm sorry for that. But my original statements were "EK is boring" and I am sticking to that. I think ASF reduction is one of the best ways to make it more interesting. I was trying to show how this is not going to unbalance the class and allows more versitility (what you seemed to want). It would be the best choice for flavor, not the only one.

There's a strawman for the ages. Nice set up to the idea that any class must either be "perfectly balanced," or will "fall apart."

Not to mention the segue from talking about a significant ability to arguably the least powerful feat in the game.

You know, I won't think less of you if you just post something about, "Let's agree to disagree." I will think less of you if your posts increasingly become diversionary tactics ("Mike doesn't really understand me!") and logical fallacies (the strawman argument).

Significant? ASF reduction of 10% would allow you to wear mirthral chain and not suffer penalties. That would be the same AC as mage armor. Ya, broken. I don't think toughness (yes, one of the weakest feats) and ASF reduction is the same. But bards can not cast in armor without penalty, and clerics always could. Allowing the EK to replace a daily buff with a cheap item is far from overly powerful.

Mike, you don't understand me, but I don't care. This is more for others reading this and my piece of mind. If I can't get a point accross or my arguement wanders, I need to revise how I write. I don't think the "strawman" arguement is that at all. It shows that abilites could be added to the class and keep it balanced. So why not add something to the class to make it more versitile, more interesting, and not break the class? The fact that something isn't there is laziness, IMO.

That's possibly the most ludicrous statement I've seen this week. Surely you don't seriously think that a GM who globally disallowed PrC's is against "specialization or expansion of abilities." I mean, unless he also disallows levelling.

No straight class rogue will ever be as good at hiding as a shadow dancer. Specialization. Wizards don't have much martial potential. Expansion. Without PrC you are limited to what the core classes are capable of, which is a limit. Against isn't the right word, limiting is better.

1. I am sympathetic to those who say that they don't think that Fighter/Wizards (or similar classes) should work. Broadly speaking, I disagree with them, but it's a matter of taste.

2. However, according to the design team, the lack of effective fighter/wizard multiclassing was not a goal of the 3e design team, but a bug in the system. If someone could come up with a sufficiently elegent solution to the problem in the core multiclassing rules, they'd implement it.

3. Thus, no, it doesn't go without saying that a GM who is opposed to traditional PrC's is opposed to effective Fighter/Wizard multiclassing.

4. As an example, I am broadly speaking opposed to traditional PrC's (I would have perhaps a few narrow specializations that actually reflected actual groups in my campaign world, but not the dozens of "official" ones). At this point, knowing what I do about the EK, I would be okay with adding it in as an exception to my usual feeling that PrC's would have to be tightly bound to my campaign world.

Your feeling about PrC does not match what the designers have stated is their intent. Group specific, specialization, and improve poor multiclass options.

Which large chunk of rules? The wholly optional PrC's?

If they are wholly optional, why are they adding more to the core rules? Better yet, why do you care if I hate the EK?

No, I don't think it's at all silly to discuss D&D with the assumption that a large number of GM's are skeptical of a given optional rule.

I have yet to meet a DM in person who hates the idea of PrC. Given the number and range of DMs I have met, I would say your "large number" make a small percent. Why design for them?

Restating your thesis over and over is not an argument for your thesis.

I apparently didn't explain it very well, so I appearently need to restate it.

 

[LokiDR]

If you want to avoid ASF and have a decent armor bonus I would suggest you go with a Blended Quartz (AEG) Chain Shirt with Elven Darkleaf, Elven Leafweave, Entropium, Blended Quartz (all AEG) or Mithral Chahar-aina (OA) and Dastana (OA) for an AC of +6 with no ASF. You can add a Blended Quartz Large Shield to bring it to +8. Not that bad if I do say so myself only 2 points behind a fighter in full plate with a large shield. Your ACP would be -4 (or -6 depending on your choices) but you would still be in light armor and your max dex bonus would be +4.

AEG and OA are cheesy, and this proves it. EK is core rules and should, under core rules, be able to magely and knightly. Hence why ASF reduction is a good ability for it to have.

 

[LokiDR]

I see the arguments for and against the EK, and I see the arguments for and against Arcane Spell Failure, and two things come to mind:

1) He's an Eldritch Knight. He shouldn't be wearing armor. He should be depending on his spells to protect him - after all, he's going to be AT LEAST 6th level, correct? There should and will be plenty of spells to give him the defense he needs.

2) This class would work BEAUTIFULLY with a master of Rays and Touch attacks. An eldritch knight armed with negative energy rays, scorching rays, flame arrows (if they exist), melf's arrows, and other sundry spells will be a very powerful character, who doesn't need protection if the enemy doesn't survive.

The flavor of being a fighting spellcaster is pretty good by itself (cleric, anyone?). Whatever flavor I wish to add can be added by me; after all, the PrC has to fit in my campaign.

Arcane Trickster and Eldrich Knight both do the same sort of thing: combine things that don't normally go all that well together. So I think it is reasonable to be annoyed if they don't do it in the same way.

AT has abilities that blend rogue and wizard at the same time. Things a rogue/mage could really use and are nifty. If those abilites don't fit, you could change them, but at least you have holes to put the abilities in.

EK is nothing more a wizard/fighter with a level adjustment. It doesn't blend the abilites at all. It doesn't do anything nifty. There is no good place for you to put some campaign specific ability without it being completely arbitrary.

The two follow completely different concepts. I want consistancy of design. I want balance and flavor. I can change the flavor to suit campaign, but adding it entirely after the fact seem more difficult. I want WotC to put lots of effort into doing this difficult thing, and will accept it when they fail. But when they don't bother to try, I get annoyed.

Bottom line, I think EK is boring and could have more flavor without too much work. I haven't seen any evidence to change this opinion.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I have confused you, and I'm sorry for that.

No, you haven't. You're currently doing your best to confuse everyone else, because you somehow feel it will make you save face now that you're having increasing difficulty coming up with any actual reasons to back up your thesis.

Wishing that the reason I still disagree with you is because I don't understand you doesn't make it so. I grasp every point you've made -- but, in my opinion, you're just wrong.

Significant? ASF reduction of 10% would allow you to wear mirthral chain and not suffer penalties. That would be the same AC as mage armor. Ya, broken. I don't think toughness (yes, one of the weakest feats) and ASF reduction is the same. But bards can not cast in armor without penalty, and clerics always could. Allowing the EK to replace a daily buff with a cheap item is far from overly powerful.

It'd aso let you wear Mithral chain (shirt) +5, and get another five points of AC for hundreds of thousands less gold than an equivalent AC would cost a normal Wizard who wanted 0 ASF.

Nice try, though.

If they are wholly optional, why are they adding more to the core rules?

What, exactly, are you dancing around saying, here, Loki? Are you trying to claim that PrC's aren't optional? Or are you just trying to imply that even though you know it's false?

I have yet to meet a DM in person who hates the idea of PrC. Given the number and range of DMs I have met, I would say your "large number" make a small percent. Why design for them?

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The singular of anecdote is particularly far from "data."

...And, yeah, that about covers all of the actual points in your post. For everything that I didn't line-by-line quote and respond to, I refer you to the first two paragraphs of this post.


EDIT: Oh, wait, there was one other actual point in there. Yes, naturally a GM who disallows PrC's wants to limit specialization and/or wacky new abilities. That's my point -- that such a GM might be okay with the Eldritch Knight because it doesn't allow any wacky new abilities, and it doesn't allow specialization beyond what the multiclass system "should" provide. Thus, the EK is palatable as a system patch even for those who aren't keen on traditional PrC's.

 

[Camarath]

AEG and OA are cheesy, and this proves it. EK is core rules and should, under core rules, be able to magely and knightly. Hence why ASF reduction is a good ability for it to have.

Mmmmmmmm.....Cheesy Flavor (note: this is a joke)

 

[LokiDR]

Mike, Mike, Mike. You being every bit as stubborn and pig-headed as I am. What is it? Can't you accept why I don't like EK? Do you think I am insulting you? Is my opinion on a published class really so intolerable?

Lets break this down: is EK boring? That is an opinion that can not possibly be wrong. What is the purpose of a PrC? I can only post what I have read of the designers opinions. Could more be added to EK without breaking it? Yes. Given an opinion that PrC are supposed to be interesting and balanced, is EK a good PrC? It lacks anything that isn't somewhere else.

No, you haven't. You're currently doing your best to confuse everyone else, because you somehow feel it will make you save face now that you're having increasing difficulty coming up with any actual reasons to back up your thesis.

Wishing that the reason I still disagree with you is because I don't understand you doesn't make it so. I grasp every point you've made -- but, in my opinion, you're just wrong.

My "thesis" is an opinion which can not possibly be wrong. Your accusation is nothing more than a lack of understanding.

It'd aso let you wear Mithral chain (shirt) +5, and get another five points of AC for hundreds of thousands less gold than an equivalent AC would cost a normal Wizard who wanted 0 ASF.

Nice try, though.

Now why would a character built on martial prowess want to have a high AC? Why would they want a cheaper method to increase AC? This must be the sole reason clerics are broken and should be eliminated.

A mage can be more protected than a fighter with all the buff spells they can cast. But that doesn't fit a fighter wizard, where armor does.

What, exactly, are you dancing around saying, here, Loki? Are you trying to claim that PrC's aren't optional? Or are you just trying to imply that even though you know it's false?

You aren't confused, so you figure it out.

In case you want an explanation to ignore, what I meant was that PrC increased in importance and coverage from 3.0 to 3.5. Though they are technically optional, they obviously aren't a low priority in the game designers view. People love them, and the designers cater to that.

But, if they are optional, why do you care if I bash one of them? If they are optional, the DM can change them however they want, or include only those they like. My distaste for one has no effect on that.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The singular of anecdote is particularly far from "data."

So, no person's collective experience is relevant? I don't care scientifically poll the D&D community to enlighten you. But the fact that more focus is being put on PrC should be evidence enough.




What this is really about is what makes a good PrC and whether EK is even a PrC. I maintain that if it is rule patch masquerading as a PrC, it should look more like other PrC. It should have flavor and balance. If it is just a negative ECL on a fighter/wizard, do that instead.

As for you, Mr. Sullivan, I look forward to your continuance of this joke of a debate. It has kept me entertained for hours

 

[Eridanis]

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The singular of anecdote is particularly far from "data."

Life is short, folks. Like Henry said, please keep it civil. There won't be a third warning.

Edit:

As for you, Mr. Sullivan, I look forward to your continuance of this joke of a debate.

Via email, I trust. See above.

 

[LokiDR]

Mmmmmmmm.....Cheesy Flavor (note: this is a joke)

I like cheese

Aren't there enchantments in Magic of Ferun and one the Book of Eldrich Might series that reduce ASF? Mirthral buckler has always been ASF free, for the cheese inclined. I have always been fond of chained magic vestments from the cleric to give the wizard an AC boost. Mmmmmmmm, cheese. But that is what adding more books is for.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Mike, Mike, Mike. You being every bit as stubborn and pig-headed as I am.

Sure. I'm being stubborn. I don't have a problem with anyone being stubborn -- and "pig-headed," if you wish.

What is it? Can't you accept why I don't like EK?

I understand why you don't like EK. I don't really care whether you like EK.

I do feel that your reasons for not liking the EK do not constitute a valid criticism of the class.

Do you think I am insulting you?

As the moderators asked (and I didn't notice the first time through) that we tone down the rhetoric, I will not further comment on my opinion as to your motivations. However, no, I was not insulted by anything you've said.

Is my opinion on a published class really so intolerable?

An unpublished class. This is the kind of question that you really need to ask yourself, though -- I can't tell you what you're going to get out of arguing on the internet.