Building an Eldritch Knight

Biggest problem here: You need several buff spells to be on par with a warrior of your own level.
Thanks. I forgot to point that out.

An EK will never be as good in fighting as a pure fighter or barbarian.
The same way as a rugue will never be as good in fighting as a pure fighter or barbarian.
However, the same way as the rogue has lots of other "applications" out of combat and the same way as the rogue rocks in combat under special circumstances, the EK has other "applications" out of combat, and he can rock in combat under special circumstances.

So another proof that D&D is balanced. My god.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AEG's mercs:myrmidon is what your looking for. Well balanced fi/wi with just the right amount of bonus' from each class. I highly recommend it.
 

green slime said:
As an Eldritch Knight, you are a single fight wonder.

The number of buffs you can get going make up for your shortcomings, but they have such a limited duration that you really cannot afford to do much.

And if you are self-buffing, then you aren't blasting as much. So all in all, a rather strange class.

The big boost for this class is the BAB, which with a decent Dex means that your rays are going to hit. Choose those without save or SR and you are going to cause havoc.

But the loss of so many feats and the fact that you are trying to cover two bases means that you are going to be hard pressed. Playing an Eldritch Knight requires careful thought.

Hmmm. That got me thinking (a rare occurence).

If the EK is not such a good front-line fighter, why not make him a second-line fighter? Meaning someone with reach or ranged weapons, in support of the toe-to-toe fighter to provide flanking or covering the pure casters (so they can blast instead of buffing/protecting). Perhaps even help the rogue out to get sneak attacks?

Kind of a "half-back" (if you know your soccer).

The EK would be very versatile in this role, especially with ray spells. Add Weapon finesse and good Dex instead of Str, or Ranged feats, into the mix.

I guess the EK will never compete with "straight" classes, but I guess it's not meant to. However, I find it has the potential to be a good "teamwork" class, enhancing the performance of the other party members.

Andargor
 

I was thinking that he wouldn't be the best fighter in the group. A straight fighter or barbarian should definitely have that title. However, I think you could do very well as a second tier fighter, like Andargor said. Archery isn't a bad idea, though I'm not sure if I want to go that route (I just got done playing an archer, and while they're good, I'd like to play something different).

I think a dwarf is a cool idea and very well may be one of the best EK race choices.

Now as for losing bonus feats.. realize that at you have 6 bonus feats from your class levels. That's a lot.. certainly more than any other class except straight fighter, and who needs 11 bonus feats, anyway?

Plus you have spells, which means at 10th level - haste (only for 6 rounds, but that's the majority of most battles anyway), mage armor, shield, fly, etc etc. Lots of good stuff.

I think you really need to look at the EK as a more fighter oriented bard. You're not the best fighter and not the best caster, but you're second best at both, which isn't too bad.

-The Souljourner
 

Grog said:
The problem is, you're kind of screwed as far as stats go... You need at least an 18 natural Intelligence to be able to cast 8th level spells.[/b]

Since when? Last time I checked, there's no natural intelligence requirement for casting spells of x level except in Neverwinter Nights (which is not a good source for understanding 3.0 D&D rules--let alone 3.5.) An int 12 wizard with a +6 headband of intellect will be able to cast 8th level spells.

A starting int of 14 or 15 is sufficient for an Eldritch Knight. (And that's naturally either int 19 or int 20 by the time he reaches 20th level anyway).

You'll definitely need a good Con for survivability, and you'll also need a good Dex because you won't be able to wear armor without suffering arcane failure chance. And, if you want to primarily be a fighter, you'll also need a good Str. That's four high stats - and on a 28 point buy, that's stretching yourself pretty thin.

The higher the con the better however, a well-played character will probably be able to survive on a 14 con. As far as dex goes, 16 is the highest that will benefit an Eldritch Knight (and that's assuming he goes for a mithral chain shirt). 16+6 (gloves)=22 which is the max dex for a mithral chain shirt. If the EK doesn't mind spell failure over 10%, a 14 dex will max out his AC in a mithral breastplate (Dex 20 with the gloves) and a 10 dex will max out his AC in mithral fullplate (which actually amounts to maxing out his AC in absolute terms). For strength, again, the higher the better but 14 is sufficient for a 28 point game.

Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 8 makes an effective 28 point buy Eldritch Knight.

That's not stretching stats any thinner than a monk or paladin.

The other major problem is hit points. If you're going to primarily act as a fighter, you'll probably be getting hit a lot, and you probably won't have the HP to last long on the front lines.

However, a well-played Eldritch Knight shouldn't get "hit a lot." The abilities gained from the wizard levels (Shield, Alter Self (+6 Nat Armor), Blink, magic circle v. evil, Displacement, Greater Invisibility etc) lend themselves more readily to defense than to offense. The Eldritch Knight ought to take less damage per round than a fighter of equal level.

Instead of having 20d10 HP, for an average of 114 or so + Con, you'll have 4d10 + 6d4 + 10d6, for an average of 76 or so + Con. And since your Con will be lower than a straight fighter's due to you having to spend points on a greater number of stats, you're likely to be down 60 HP or more from a straight fighter.

Only at 20th level. At mid levels and the low range of high levels, False Life, and the judicious use of Craft Wondrous Item (amulet of health) should be able to somewhat rectify the hit point imbalance.

And the fighter's con advantage is not as high as you might think either. A 28 point buy fighter might well have Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8. The fighter could, naturally, dump his int and dex down a bit to eke out a 16 con but that's still only one hp/level from con and dumping int to 8 really hurts the fighter's feat options and skill progressions (which are very relevant if the fighter wants a prestige class).

So I'd be careful before wading into the front lines if I were you. Even with all the good self-buffing spells out there, you'll probably still end up subpar.

I wouldn't say that. By taking advantage of every option available to you in the rules, you might well end up a little bit above par for a fighter of your level. You won't have the raw damage dealing capacity of a hyper-optimized fighter. But you won't have his vulnerabilities either. And you will probably have a damage capacity equivalent to or slightly better than an "average" fighter.


Plus, your mid-levels are going to be hell. When you hit 10th level, you'll only have 3rd level spells and a +7 BAB. At that level, being short 3 BAB is going to make a difference. And next level, a single class fighter will get his 3rd attack, while you'll still be sitting at two.

The only way you end up with only 3rd level spells is if you take all four fighter levels up front. A Ftr 2/Wiz 6/EK 2 has 4th level spells as does the Ftr 1/Wiz 6/EK 2.

The BAB hurts--no question about it--but the EK has means to overcome that difficulty and the attack imbalance. The heroism spell (which lasts a decent amount of time) gives +2 to hit--almost enough to make up for the BAB difference. Crafting boots of speed makes up for the attack difference at 11th level. Using Expert Tactician in combination with Blink or Greater Invisibility makes up for the BAB difference and the attack.

Polymorphing into troll form also goes a ways towards making up for the difference in attack bonus.

I'm not saying the concept is worthless, or anything, but I do think it'll be somewhat difficult to play.

I wouldn't say difficult to play. Construction requires care to mitigate the weaknesses you mention and exploit the strengths you don't mention but once you've done that, I don't imagine it will be so difficult to play.

Others have contended that the lack of feats makes the EK a one-trick pony. Not in my experience (although this is admittedly 3.0 experience with a character who didn't have the EK prestige class available to him). If you have a human Ftr 1/Wiz 6/EK 3, the character has one human bonus feat, four normal feats, one wizard bonus feat, one fighter bonus feat and one EK bonus feat. If the player wants, that's enough for Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Expert Tactician, Improved Trip, Craft Wondrous Item, and Quickdraw. Which is enough feats to be a noticably more flexible combatant than your typical 10th level paladin or barbarian if not as flexible as your typical 10th level fighter. (Although, that said, if the fighter didn't spend enough points on int to have access to combat expertise, it's quite likely that the EK actually has more options open to him).

And the contention that the EK is a one-fight wonder. Not really. More like a two or three fight wonder (more if it's a dungeon crawl with lots of successive fights). The tenth level EK's listed above have enough spells to cast Blink or Greater Invisibility in three fights per day and still have a polymorph or stoneskin available for one fight and Heroism, Magic Circle v. evil, and alter self available if they can guess the time of the fight within +/- 35 min, False life if they can guess the fight to within +/- 3.5 hours, and Shield and Protection from evil if the party can guess the fight within +/- 3.5 min. And there's still enough spells left over for a mirror image, scorching ray, glitterdust, and a few rays of enfeeblement or magic missiles (more if he has a few pearls of power to replentish after the fight).

Then again, after two or three fights, most spellcasters are beginning to feel their limitations and the fighters are starting to feel the spellcasters' limitations (in terms of healing, etc) too.

Sure the Eldritch Knight is a half-back. If you try to shoehorn him into the role of a single-classed character, he won't be optimally effective in that role. However, if you use his abilities to create a new role, he can contribute as much to the party as a single-classed character.
 

Souljourner said:
I think you really need to look at the EK as a more fighter oriented bard. You're not the best fighter and not the best caster, but you're second best at both, which isn't too bad.

Speaking of combat oriented bards, what do you think of the fighter or paladin/bard based EK? Your spells aren't as good as wizard spells but you have more hit points, the ability to cast in light armor, and more BAB. (And most of the spells that are useful to the EK are on your list--Alter Self, Mirror Image, Blink, Heroism, Haste, Greater Invisibility, Great Shout, etc)
 

Elder-Basilisk said:
For the best caster level, you could choose: Ftr 1/Wizard 6/Spellsword 9/Sacred Exorcist 4. You end up with a +16 BAB that way which is still enough for the all-important fourth attack but you also have a caster level of 18--enough for 9th level spells.
*does a spittake* Wasn't Spellsword the horribly maligned class which can be outdone by a combination of Fighter and Wizard? I recall Frank did an exact breakdown on it which basically blew it out of the sky.

Grog said:
The problem is, you're kind of screwed as far as stats go... You need at least an 18 natural Intelligence to be able to cast 8th level spells. You'll definitely need a good Con for survivability, and you'll also need a good Dex because you won't be able to wear armor without suffering arcane failure chance. And, if you want to primarily be a fighter, you'll also need a good Str. That's four high stats - and on a 28 point buy, that's stretching yourself pretty thin.
That is why you don't design anything other than a stereotypical one-stat character under point-buy. That is the inherent failing of point buy, the inability to design a character dependent on more than one stat worth spit, and why I, personally, dislike point-buy in a PnP game. Point-buy is an artifact of computer games and arena matches. Nothing shoots making a character concept in the foot quite like being just like everyone else. After all, in the real world, people DON'T all have the same stats: You are unique....just like everyone else.
 
Last edited:

Norfleet said:
That is why you don't design anything other than a stereotypical one-stat character under point-buy. That is the inherent failing of point buy, the inability to design a character dependent on more than one stat worth spit, and why I, personally, dislike point-buy in a PnP game. Point-buy is an artifact of computer games and arena matches. Nothing shoots making a character concept in the foot quite like being just like everyone else. After all, in the real world, people DON'T all have the same stats: You are unique....just like everyone else.

I'd say there are plenty of people in the "real world" with equivalent portions of talent divided among their interests. Their personalities, varying interests, and the choices they make result in everyone being unique.

Rolling does offer more variabilitiy in the amount of talent each character has, but certainly doesn't stop personality, classes chosen, feats chosen, spells chosen, and magic items purchases (not to mention decisions made in-game) from creating unique characters.

Give me 2 straight fighters with identical stats and I'll turn out 2 unique warriors.

I don't discredit your desire to add more variability through rolling, but please don't try to tell me that the uniqueness of a character is defined by his stats.

DM2
 

I love spittake mushrooms! ;)

Paladin/bard is a bit difficult... seeing as paladins need to be lawful good and bards need to be non-lawful. Though I think most people agree that the non-lawfulness of bards is a crock. Still... I'm a little iffy on the usefulness of having not only fewer caster levels, but having fewer of a less potent class. Seems like a double whammy.

People keep talking about a lack of feats... I really don't see how 6 bonus feats makes for a "lack of feats". It's more than a ranger gets, more than a paladin gets, more than a barbarian gets, yet they all make perfectly good front line fighters (of one flavor or another). Now granted only 4 of those are fighter feats, but still... that's more than half again as many feats as paladins or barbarians get in total.

That's pretty good, in my opinion.

-The Souljourner
 

Oops. Make that Ftr 1/Wiz 6/Eldritch Knight 9/Sacred Exorcist 4
BAB +16; Clvl 18

As for spellsword, I don't think it's that bad as long as you don't take more than four levels. The important thing is that you eliminate arcane spell failure. Two levels is enough to wear a mithral chain shirt and never have to roll. Four levels buys you a mithral breastplate. Spellsword cache is marginally (very very marginally) more useful than brew potion in 3.5 since you don't need to spend an MeA to draw a weapon like you do a potion. And the spellsword channel ability is quite useful. It's essentially the ability to quicken one or two first level spells per day spontaneously. The class isn't nearly as good as Eldritch Knight and is pretty marginal compared to fighter or wizard but I think that, Ftr 2/Wizard 16/Spellsword 2 is a better combination than Frank's Ftr/Wiz combinations. And Ftr 2/Wizard 14/Spellsword 4 is better than Ftr 6/Wiz 14. That's not saying a lot of course. But it is something.

Norfleet said:
*does a spittake* Wasn't Spellsword the horribly maligned class which can be outdone by a combination of Fighter and Wizard? I recall Frank did an exact breakdown on it which basically blew it out of the sky.
 

Remove ads

Top