DMG - Eldritch Knight

[hong]

I've got to side with Elder-Basilisk on this one. The Eldritch Knight is EXACTLY what I think DMG PrCs should be like: very generic but balanced, so that the DM uses them as a template for constructing his own classes. No single powerful ability, and it's not tied around any campaign-specific organizations/spells/gods/whatever.

You sure have low standards for DMG prestige classes. Oh well, at least it makes a change from "worst change evar!" threads.

 

[drnuncheon]

If you want to fix the multiclassed spellcaster bugs, then fix them. Making up a separate PrC for every combo is about as cumbersome a hack as you could get.

And yet, three years after the release of 3.0, nobody has managed to do this in a way that satisfies more than a small fraction of people.

"You want a cure for the common cold, then cure it. Making a separate drug for every symptom is about as cumbersome a hack as you can get."

J

 

[hong]

And yet, three years after the release of 3.0, nobody has managed to do this in a way that satisfies more than a small fraction of people.

In fact, nobody has actually _attempted_ to fix this problem, last I checked. There are lots of alt.rangers out there, because you can easily make up new classes within the confines of the ruleset. There are practically no multiclassing fixes, because that involves tinkering with the ruleset itself, and only WotC has the mindshare to do that and get away with it.

"You want a cure for the common cold, then cure it. Making a separate drug for every symptom is about as cumbersome a hack as you can get."

That makes a lot more sense if you add the words "IN BED" on the end.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do not understand how a flavorless class is a good example for a "Prestige Class" in the DMG?
Where is the Prestige, where is the special about the class?

Thinking of D20 Modern, I might consider it being a "Advanced Class", but not a Prestige Class.

Oh, and a DM that uses only the DMG as a base source, and especially the Mystic Theurge and the Eldritch Knight, might never come to think that a Prestige Class should have any flavour or campaignspecific features...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[hong]

IMO, d20 Modern should have gone classless right from the start. When your "classes" are just collections of special abilities with no hook, then the point of having classes in the first place has been lost.

 

[Technik4]

Oh, and a DM that uses only the DMG as a base source,<snip>

Except that it also includes The Red Wizard, a prc teeming with flavor. Especially under the new specialization rules, which apparantly the Red Wizard didn't get included in. Even the example is not possible under 3.5.

A red wizard gives up 4 schools (not divination) for some big bonuses to 1 school. Now that's devotion. An evoker who can't use Illusion, Necromancy, Enchantment, or <Abjuration, Conjuration, or Transmutation> gave up a LOT.

The point is there are many prcs, different prcs for different tastes. Some people like em bland so they can supply the flavor, some people like em full of flavor so they don't need to be tweaked, and some people just like them expanding what a PC can do.

Technik

 

[Hejdun]

If the designers truly feel that multi-classing is so screwed up, perhaps they would do better to re-examine the class system as a whole rather then try to create band-aids with PrCs...

WotC_Andy: We had to prioritize our efforts. Some spells were simply more abusive than others, and those were the ones that got the attention. Remember that this project had nowhere near the time or resources that 3.0 had, so we had to pick and choose what we spent time on and what we left for the next edition.

In other words, they realized they were still going to have errors and unbalancing situations anyways, and choose to push out 3.5 now anyways, and then leave the rest of the changes to be fixed when 4.0 comes out in 2-3 years.

In a way, I can see why they chose do to this. After all, there's no easy fix to the class system that won't totally change the basic foundation 3.0 lay. They used these classes (Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight) as bandaids for the most archetypal of multiclasses (fighter/mage, cleric/wizard) and left the big, gaping hole alone, because fixing the hemmorhage would require major surgery, which would really dig below the surface of the skin of what 3.5 is supposed to be.

And, just for my cynical comment on the end, you can see the marketing reason to leaving holes. That way you don't leave the consumer base satisfied with the rules and then you present them something (4.0) that deals with those holes. It's like Games Workshop's strategy with Warhammer 40k; you leave it broken, and sell a whole lot of little 'fixes'. Another company does the same thing, and I'll give you some hints on who they are. They are a thoroughly evil software company that is taking over the world.

 

[James McMurray]

In fact, nobody has actually _attempted_ to fix this problem, last I checked. There are lots of alt.rangers out there, because you can easily make up new classes within the confines of the ruleset. There are practically no multiclassing fixes, because that involves tinkering with the ruleset itself, and only WotC has the mindshare to do that and get away with it.

Actually, Wizards has attempted it for years now. Their best answer was the EK and MT.

 

[Remathilis]

My problem with the Eldritch Knight is that is was touted at the "revised Spellsword", except its NOTHING like the spellsword. No casting in armor, no channelled spells, no scribing spells on your blade, etc.)

I'd rather be a spellsword than a Eldritch Knight 9 out of 10 times.

But thats just me. Carry on.

 

[drnuncheon]

In fact, nobody has actually _attempted_ to fix this problem, last I checked.

You haven't been by the House Rule boards lately, have you? Or the innumerable threads on the EK and Mystic Theurge where people proposed alternate "fixes"? Come on. There's been plenty of attempts to fix the problem, and most of 'em have even worse flaws and side effects than the PrC "fixes".

J