DMG - Eldritch Knight

[The Blue Elf]

Man, I remember that Anti-Palidan (AKA Black Guard) was just a Straight normal class also Assasin. Sure, this new class is a pain , but you as a DM would restrict it from your Campaign if you wish to do it.

 

[Dragonblade]

Whats wrong with the Eldritch Knight? Its a good sor/ftr combo prestige class.

It lets me have the magic of an arcane caster with some of the upfront combat power of the fighter. Its perfectly fine.

If its boring then don't play one. But I think its a very good example of what a prestige class should be.

Also, on a side note, has anyone checked out the Arcane Strike feat in the latest Dragon magazine?

Now picture an Eldritch Knight with that feat and you are looking at a pretty badass class!

Furthermore, an EK can easily hold its own against a fighter, what with the animal buff spells and my favorite, Tenser's Transformation, an EK can be pretty cool!

 

[satori01]

I couldnt read the whole thread because it just became.... well you know, however my two cents:

The AU spell system of having just one list is a starting point to "fixing" the spell cast multi class problem.

The other component is having the equivalent of "magical BAB", which has floated around this board for some time.

The problem isnt insoluble, just somewhat inconvienent, and I forsee the first 3 party company that made a "magical bab" chart and released it in cheap pdf form would probably make some moola.

 

[DM_Matt]

W

Also, on a side note, has anyone checked out the Arcane Strike feat in the latest Dragon magazine?

Now picture an Eldritch Knight with that feat and you are looking at a pretty badass class!

Furthermore, an EK can easily hold its own against a fighter, what with the animal buff spells and my favorite, Tenser's Transformation, an EK can be pretty cool!

What does Arcane Strike do?

Tensers Trans isnt so good for EK's. It grants fighter Bab (so only +2 or 3...no biggie without an iterative attack) rather than a big plus, +4 ENH to str and dex (but you need to drink a potion of bulls str with it, so that covers one of those), and a +5 to nat armor and fort saves. At those levels, you will almost definately have items that the enhancement bonuses wont stack with, and maybe even the nat armor, too..and you cant cast spells.

Instead, you get Greater Heroism (or at least you should get it first). The duration is longer (1min/L instead of 1r/L), you still can cast spells, and you dont need to use a potion of bs everytime. The benefits are a +4 MORALE bonus to attacks, skill checks, and saves, immunity to fear, and +1hp/level.

 

[hong]

The two classes are mechanically distinct and different in flavor, much like - oh, say, the fighter and the barbarian. Both represent different magic-using fantasy archetypes, so there's a place for both.

Which part of

Then they invented some lame-assed "blood of dragons" handwave to justify having two primary arcane spellcasting classes in the game.

did you not understand the first time? You can find a handwave for anything. But some handwaves are better than others.

There is absolutely no reason the sorc spellcasting mechanic couldn't be used to handle the book-learning mage. In fact, last I checked, most other games used something similar (know only a limited number of spells, cast those spells whenever you want). D&D is the only game that has mages carry a spellbook everywhere they go, and prepare spells from that spellbook each day.

This way, you could have one class handle _both_ the book-learning mage _and_ the "power of dragons" guy. Just like the fighter handles the knight on a horse, the greatsword guy, and the guy with the bow. It solves a lot of problems, including PrC creation, niche issues, and multiclassing issues.

I guess you could whittle everything back down to the Big Four, but that would hardly give you any flavor, would it? And isn't that your chief objection to the EK and MT?

Because the EK and MT are _not base classes_. Sheesh.

And I thought _you_ were one of those guys who wanted to cut the core classes down to the big 4?

Now, you may say 'well if you care so much about flavor and character then it shouldn't matter that it's a suboptimal choice', but that's creating a false dilemma, since the two are not mutually exclusive goals. Why shouldn't it be a viable concept in both kinds of games? The idea of a prestige class to make an underpowered concept more attractive is one of the oldest types there is - look at the lasher or the duelist.

You'll note that neither the lasher nor the duelist resort to something as half-baked as taking two base classes and adding them together. Heck, even the arcane trickster and spellsword have unique abilities. It's only the EK and MT that are boring.

Again, I say, if you want a cleric/mage that's actually interesting, have a look at Monte's hallowed mage. That's a cleric/mage done right.

 

[hong]

are you saying that the Eldritch Knight is a hack to broken system that exposes how broken 3.5 and 3.0 actually are and that we should just start a brand new system. because there is an inconsistincy Wizards and Fighters don't multiclass well together. The entire system is corrupt and should be thrown out. Since the eldritch Knight doesn't live up to your standards as being a good PrC the entire system is broken and we shoud switch to a classless system.

I hadn't realized that my favorite gaming system was so screwed up. I mean just cause they make a boooooooring PrC to fix a probelm with multiclassing two vastly different classes I'm going to have to switch to playing shadowrun or something.

It's a game people. They set up rules. you are not going to like all the rules. Like 10,000 gp for a glove of storing. Or the fact that ghost sound has a vocal component. If you think you can do better make your own d20 system. Or better yet make up your own roleplaying system. If a boring PrC and a few minor rules that I disagree with is all I have to deal with then I'm a happy camper.

Oi. Keep quiet while I dogpile on your DM, okay?

ThaADVANCEnks!

 

[drnuncheon]

There is absolutely no reason the sorc spellcasting mechanic couldn't be used to handle the book-learning mage. In fact, last I checked, most other games used something similar (know only a limited number of spells, cast those spells whenever you want). D&D is the only game that has mages carry a spellbook everywhere they go, and prepare spells from that spellbook each day.

How many of those games actually make any distinction between 'the book-learning mage _and_ the "power of dragons" guy'? Most of them only have one type of mage. Looking the shelf over...Ars Magica? It's all in the book larnin'. Mage? You have to have the natural talent to even try it. Exalted? Book larnin'. Amber? Natural talent (well, walking the Pattern or the Logrus). GURPS? OK, I'll give you that one, it's loosely defined enough that you could do the magic either way.

Of course, in GURPS, there is fundamentally no difference between the guy who does it by book larnin' and the guy who does it by natural talent - whereas in D&D, there is a fundamental difference between the two - and there's also one between Archery Guy, Greatsword Guy, and Horsey Guy, because they chose wildly different class abilities.

The split may have been made because of game mechanics, but that doesn't make it a bad one - instead, it's part of the flavor of D&D.

Did I say flavor? But aren't I arguing for 'flavorless' classes? Sure. Because I think that fighter/magicuser is a fine flavor all by itself, and it doesn't necessarily need the Spellsword's 'twist of lymon' or the Bladesinger's 'real cheddar flavor'. What it does need is to be concentrated, boiled down to the essentials - since to keep up with the other characters in the current rules, you'd need half again as many levels to be viable.

And I thought _you_ were one of those guys who wanted to cut the core classes down to the big 4?

Me? Hell no. I've always hated the 'paladins ought to be just a fighter/cleric' argument.

If you can't keep track of who you're arguing with, maybe you need a break?

J

 

[hong]

How many of those games actually make any distinction between 'the book-learning mage _and_ the "power of dragons" guy'?

D&D certainly didn't, before 3E. And yet I don't recall the hordes besieging WotC's doors, screaming "we must have two arcane spellcasters in 3E!!1!!".

Most of them only have one type of mage. Looking the shelf over...Ars Magica? It's all in the book larnin'. Mage? You have to have the natural talent to even try it. Exalted? Book larnin'. Amber? Natural talent (well, walking the Pattern or the Logrus). GURPS? OK, I'll give you that one, it's loosely defined enough that you could do the magic either way.

Exactly. First, nobody really cares if there's only one type of mage. In fact, it would seem that quite a lot of people prefer it that way. Second, even if _you_ care, there's nothing about having only one spellcasting mechanic that prevents you thinking up any number of handwaves for how things work ingame.

Of course, in GURPS, there is fundamentally no difference between the guy who does it by book larnin' and the guy who does it by natural talent - whereas in D&D, there is a fundamental difference between the two -

There is a _mechanical difference_ because the rules are botched. Fix the rules, and you don't have a _mechanical difference_ anymore. That brings you back to the situation that existed beforehand, which seemed to be good enough for 25 years.

Admit it. If it wasn't for this stuffup that saw sorcs and wizards exist as separate classes with their own backstories, you wouldn't even _know_ there was an issue in the first place. You're reifying an after-the-fact handwave into something far more substantial than it should be.

and there's also one between Archery Guy, Greatsword Guy, and Horsey Guy, because they chose wildly different class abilities.

And yet they're all based on the one class. Similarly, you can have any number of archetypes you want with one spellcasting class, using spontaneous casting.

The split may have been made because of game mechanics, but that doesn't make it a bad one - instead, it's part of the flavor of D&D.

So make good rules to back it up.

Did I say flavor? But aren't I arguing for 'flavorless' classes? Sure. Because I think that fighter/magicuser is a fine flavor all by itself, and it doesn't necessarily need the Spellsword's 'twist of lymon' or the Bladesinger's 'real cheddar flavor'.

So make good rules to back it up.

What it does need is to be concentrated, boiled down to the essentials - since to keep up with the other characters in the current rules, you'd need half again as many levels to be viable.

IOW, make good rules to back it up.

If you can't keep track of who you're arguing with, maybe you need a break?

You first.

 

[drnuncheon]

Admit it. If it wasn't for this stuffup that saw sorcs and wizards exist as separate classes with their own backstories, you wouldn't even _know_ there was an issue in the first place.

Well, except for the decade-plus of complaining that D&D magic didn't work like magic does in any other fantasy world besides Vance and Zelazny.

But I never had a problem with there being Vancian magic, too. More options = more good, right? As long as they're balanced?

So make good rules to back it up.

Why? You're the one that's unhappy with them.

So make good rules to back it up.

Why? You're the one that's unhappy with them.

IOW, make good rules to back it up.

...

You first.

Lest this turn into even more of a schoolyard battle, replete with namecalling and "so's your mother" - I think I shall.

J

 

[DiFier]

Oi. Keep quiet while I dogpile on your DM, okay?

ThaADVANCEnks!

Wow. I really feel humiliated by your disimissive post. You are so much better at arguing than I am.

but that isn't the point. The point is I want you to define your stance. What is your point? I know that having a point makes winning an argument more difficult. But please to help keep this board civil I would like you to define your stance.

It sound to me like you are saying that D&D is an utterally flawed system that is so hung up on it's history that it will never work. examples of this core flaw are the eldritch knight and the wizard. Am I reading you right.

If I am then there is no point in arguing. It would be like trying to change someone's religion or political affiliation. pointless. anyone who argues about those sort of things already has their mind made up and no arguing will change it. All that will happen is that someone will switch the goal from convincing the other side to agree with them to winning by trying to humiliate the other side.