Just so long as we agree we are both being stubborn.Mike Sullivan said:Sure. I'm being stubborn. I don't have a problem with anyone being stubborn -- and "pig-headed," if you wish.
Good, because none was intended.Mike Sullivan said: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.
It fills my day and gives me the occasional chuckle. That is all that matters.Mike Sullivan said:An unpublished class.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.
This is a point worth debating.Mike Sullivan said: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.
1) Different design than past "multiclassing options" such as the Arcane Trickster.
2) Doesn't do enough to make fighter wizard a reality. You get BAB, martial weapon prof, and some few fighter feats. You have little ability to act like a fighter wading into melee
3) Has no "flavor" for any setting. There is no swapping out of abilities that fit my campaign.
4) Overlap. This isn't a PrC but a rules patch, as we discussed a while back. I think fighter/mages should take work to develop and, therefore, should get something more out of it. This is a multiclass mage/fighter/warrior with a negative ECL. Either make it a PrC (ala arcane trickster) or give it some other name.