Building an Eldritch Knight

[Elder-Basilisk]

Alignment is a little bit of a problem but not too much of one. Bards don't suffer much from being ex-bards. They retain all their abilities, they just can't take more bard levels. Which doesn't matter much if you weren't planning to anyway. So call it ex-bard 8/Pal 2/Eldritch Knight 10.

You end up with a caster level of 17--nearly as high as the high caster level EK builds (although obviously in the less-potent bard class) and a BAB of +18--more than is available to the fighting EK wizard and sorceror builds. You also end up with the same hit points as the Ftr 4/Wiz 6/EK 10 build. So the primary question would be this: is +1 clvl, +1 BAB, 44 skill points from a more generous list, and 8 levels of bard abilities worth giving up three bonus feats (one fighter*, one wizard, and scribe scroll) and trading wizard casting (15 levels of it for 8th level spells) for bard casting (17 levels of it for 6th level spells)?

*Technically the fighter gets three more bonus feats than an ex-bard paladin but fighter levels could easily replace the ex-bard's paladin levels bringing the difference down to one bonus fighter feat, one wizard feat, and scribe scroll.

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.

 

[The Souljourner]

It is an interesting build, I'll give you that. And you're right, a lot of the good defensive spells are on the Bard's list, as well as not having to worry about spell failure even in a mithral breastplate, which is pretty sweet.

Also, 8th level is the magic bard level where inspire courage bumps to +2. That's pretty cool to have.

For my personal situation, I think my friends would kill me if I played another paladin. I happen to have a dwarven paladin / fighter / dwarven defender and a straight human paladin in two campaigns right now. I'm already getting the "you're always a paladin" whinage, even though the dwarf is really primarily a fighter (3 levels of paladin, 4 of fighter and 2 of DD), plus I'm playing a bard in my Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil game, since my Elven archer just died (for the third time... though once he got True Resurrected due to a kind DM and a perfect plot point).

I think dwarven fighter/wizard/EK is perfect.. I mean, dwarves are fighters first, right? I'd think EK is about as close as they'd want to get to those pansy wizards.

I just wish they hadn't nerfed the stat spells.. it makes them pretty much useless, since you already have too many other low duration buffs to use. In fact, since 3.5, I haven't seen a single one cast. Suckage.

-The Souljourner

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

Or, and I think this point is fairly major, you could take two levels in a class which improves your caster level (and therefore one level higher spells), and then get still spell as a feat, which means you never ever suffer arcane failure for any spell ever, even in full plate and carrying a tower shield.

Additionally, if you're NOT wearing armour (or you cast spells which have no somatic component in the first place), you've got access to higher level spells.

That's the problem with spellsword - its supposed major benefit is a total waste of time.

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.

Which should be viewed as the only reason to really take the class. If you think this particular ability is good enough to lose X caster levels for, go for it. Otherwise, choose something else.

Just keep in mind the fact that typically your weapon damage+bonuses is going to be less than what you'd get out of empowering a spell (which is, incidentally, the equivalent of getting 4 levels in a caster class) unless you're a very heavy melee build.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Or, and I think this point is fairly major, you could take two levels in a class which improves your caster level (and therefore one level higher spells), and then get still spell as a feat, which means you never ever suffer arcane failure for any spell ever, even in full plate and carrying a tower shield.[/b]

Not quite. Assuming, for the sake of comparison, a wizard has the choice between taking four levels of wizard or a similar prestige class (alienist, elemental savant, etc) (+2 BAB, 4 caster levels) wearing armor and using still spell or taking four levels of spellsword (+3 BAB, 2 caster levels).

At caster level 8, the wizard has a base of 4/3/3/2 spells after taking Still Spell into account.

At caster level 6, the spellsword has 4/3/3/2 as well. Advantage wizard (since he can use some spells that don't have somatic components or long duration spells (at least in 3.0--there aren't many in 3.5)).

However, at the high end, the wizard loses his advantage.

Clvl 19 with Still Spell: 4/4/4/4/4/4/3/3
Clvl 17 spellsword: 4/4/4/4/4/4/4/3/2/1

The Spellsword can cast any 9th level spell he wants without risking failure. The normal fighter/wizard has to use those slots for stilled 8th level spells or for spells without somatic components.

If the character takes only two levels of spellsword (enough to wear a mithral chain shirt without spell failure), the advantage kicks in immediately:

Ftr/Wiz Clvl 8: 4/3/3/2
Spellsword clvl 7: 4/4/3/2/1

Even when the Ftr/Wiz catches up to the spellsword's highest level spells, he's still behind in spells/day:

Ftr/Wiz Clvl 9: 4/4/3/2/1
Splswd Clvl 8: 4/4/3/3/2

Taking two levels of Spellsword is superior to two levels of a wizard class and using Still Spell if you wear a mithral chain shirt. Taking four levels of Spellsword could possibly be worth it for the extra hit points, saves, and point of base attack bonus--however, at that point you have the same spells as someone using Still Spell so you're actually making Spell Failure a more significant factor for you (since you suffer from spell failure > 15% but the wizard character doesn't ever suffer from spell failure).

Additionally, if you're NOT wearing armour (or you cast spells which have no somatic component in the first place), you've got access to higher level spells.

If you're not wearing armor, there's no reason to take the Spellsword class--we're agreed there. However, spells without somatic components are typically underperformers for their level.

That's the problem with spellsword - its supposed major benefit is a total waste of time.

I'd put it this way: the spellsword loses too many caster levels for its major benefit to be worth pursuing for more than 4 levels at the very most. Two levels is generally all that is worth taking. Spellswords should have at least 3/4 spellcasting progression. (Even losing one caster level (like the Eldritch Knight) could be balanced).

Just keep in mind the fact that typically your weapon damage+bonuses is going to be less than what you'd get out of empowering a spell (which is, incidentally, the equivalent of getting 4 levels in a caster class) unless you're a very heavy melee build.

Hmmm. Let me see. Empowered Magic Missile 1.5x(5d4+5)=avg 26.5 points of damage or +2 flaming Greatsword+magic missile (2d6+8+1d6)+4d4+4 avg 32.5 points of damage. (There is, naturally, a chance to miss, but it can be cut down to 5% and the damage jacked up by casting True Strike and delivering the attack via Expert Tactician). And even if the spellsword took 4 levels of Spellsword, he still (effectively) spent a lower level spell slot since the non-spellsword can't still and empower all of the spells the spellsword could cast without being 6 caster levels ahead. And the non-spellsword is really only two caster levels ahead of the character with four spellsword levels.

 

[The Souljourner]

Spellsword is ok... but getting only 1 caster level and 1 BAB out of two levels seems like a waste just to get rid of 10% arcane spell failure. I'm planning on not wearing armor. I won't have stellar AC, but I'll probably be second only to full plate types (and maybe monks with damn good stats), especially if I put my second best stat in dex.

This is the build I'm looking to start at:

Fighter 2/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 2

I like that this starts me with 4th level spells. That's only one spell level lower than a straight wizard, plus there are some stellar 4th level spells out there (polymorph, greater invisibility, and stoneskin anyone?)

I plan on making the next two levels fighter levels, so that at 12th I can take weapon specialization and improved critical in my chosen weapon (not sure what that'll be... for now call it a great axe)

These are the feats I'm thinking about:

Blind Fight
Power Attack
Cleave
Scribe Scroll
Improved Familiar (Psuedodragon)
Craft Magic Weapons
Weapon Focus: Great Axe
Combat Expertise
Expert Tactician

I didn't take great cleave because I almost never see it used - any guys you can drop in one hit aren't worth spending a feat to kill even more easily. Cleave is fine, since the one extra attack is useful in many fights, and expert tactician is a lot better than great cleave when you have improved invisibility (oops, I mean greater invisibility... stupid name).

I like the thought of a tiny dragon on my dwarf's shoulder - it certainly seems like a more suitable familiar than a cat or something pansy-@$$ like that. Plus, blindsight 60' radius is awesome, and it has telepathy and it can fly 60. All in all, it's pretty sweet, and besides, I was running out of feats to take... and people say that EK builds don't have enough feats... phooey, I say!

-The Souljourner

 

[James McMurray]

Improved Critical no longer stacks with Keen, so if money is more plentiful than xp in your campaign, it might be better to go with a Keen axe.

 

[The Souljourner]

Hmm... good point. And in my experience feats/xp are almost always less plentiful than money. Hmm.. instead, maybe Close Quarters Fighting... I love that feat. Combat Reflexes and Improved Initiative are good alternatives too.

Now all I need is the spell list.

-The Souljourner

 

[Darklone]

The EK suffers from the same problem as the cleric: Pretty strong with buffes, rather lame without. So never take more then two or three buffs into account if you compare it with a pure fighter

 

[The Souljourner]

The only buff I generally include is mage armor. I think 1 hour a level is perfecly acceptable to include.

Then either shield or alter self or polymorph once in battle. Seems pretty reasonable.

I'm not expecting to have polymorph and shield and haste and and and all on at the same time. I've played a cleric before, I know how it works - waste too many rounds buffing and the fight is over before you get to bash some heads.

I think even without those buffs, if you concentrate on fighting rather than spellcasting, you can do pretty well.

-The Souljourner

 

[Darklone]

Don't forget False Life... 1hour/level

And you need the hitpoints.