DMG - Eldritch Knight

[James McMurray]

If you think a plea to logic will work on Hong, you haven't been on these boards long enough.

 

[sithramir]

This is the PrC i've always been waiting for. Still a wizard but I sacrifice a little to get a better BAB. I don't care that the class didn't GIVE me the flavor. I add the flavor anyways. I always like a guy who's a wizard for the most part but who still practices the sword. Theres no "added flavor" that fits that. That is the flavor. Maybe I use my spells to enhance my fighting? Or maybe I don't. The point is it gives me a mix without multiclassing. Because then I end up a 4th level fighter/7th level mage. I only cast 4th level spells. Now instead i'm Fighter 1/Mage 5/E 5. So i still have 2 levels of fighter equivalent but Now cast 5th level spells.

I love it. Sucks that you don't.

I personally don't like the monk. They should fix that.

 

[Zogg]

**APPLAUSE**

grabs popcorn, returns to reading silly banter.

(ENworld needs a thread with some healthy disagreement every now and then {even if certain posters are immature})

 

[Dragonblade]

Arcane Strike

Arcane Strike is in the latest issue of Dragon and is the best feat to give an Eldritch Knight.

An arcane caster may sacrifice one of his daily spells to empower his melee attacks.

He gains a +2 to hit and +1d6 damage per spell level used, the hit bonus can't exceed his current base attack bonus.

So a 5th level spell can be used to give his next attack +10 to hit and +5d6 damage (assuming his BAB is at least 10).

This is an awesome feat and should be a class ability of the EK, in lieu of the bonus feat the EK gets at first level.

 

[DiFier]

is that all day or for one attack?

 

[LokiDR]

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.

Flavor differences, maybe. Mechanically? Riiiiight. That must be why Monte re-wrote sorcerer or many house rule one or the other out. The have the same spell progression, same basic abilities. They are mechanically nearly the same thing, and that is another point that should be fixed. If they really are different, they need more than number of spells and a couple of feats to tell them apart.

Fighters and barbarians will look different in the game world. Sorcerer and wizards won't far too often.

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?

Going down to the Big Four is a Bad Idea (tm). I must not have been clear enough on that. That direction is the only way that EK and MT make sense. Since that isn't the way the game is going, EK doesn't make sense.

"I shall call you...mini-hong."

That is so going in my sig.

For a tactical wargame? Sure. For a game in which the players are more concerned with choosing their class based on what makes sense for the character rather than what makes sense for the fights, not at all.

Stupid is as stupid does. No game system can make up for that.

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.

Yes, look at them. Do they do more than just give you more fighter feats at a faster rate? They have something unique, compelling, intereting, flavorful. EK doesn't.

Unlike Hong (correct me if I am wrong big guy) I am in favor of keeping pace with history. EK and MT just don't. Untill 4e, new PrC should be built like those before, which means EK and MT stick out like sore losers.

 

[LokiDR]

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.

Loki's Law: Good DMs can make up for bad rules. That doesn't make the rule good.

 

[DiFier]

Loki's Law: Good DMs can make up for bad rules.

ah that's why I enjoy this game so much.

 

[Dragonblade]

is that all day or for one attack?

One spell used up, one attack boosted. Its powerful, but not unbalanced. And it fits the theme of the EK perfectly.

 

[drnuncheon]

That is so going in my sig.

I've been sigged.

My work here is done.

J