DMG - Eldritch Knight

[LokiDR]

Ok, we are starting to get really off topic, so I am going to try to make this short and not discuss the issue any more.

I'll give you the Scry, but I wouldn't say Concentration is entirely useless. We're talking about a fighter-type who takes one level of a caster class here. Sure, he could decide to only take non-combat spells like Identify, but like I said earlier, this is just about as effective as a Rogue using Use Magic Device and is far less flexible.
As for Spellcraft, note that one of the things I said was "Replace the caster level checks for SR penetration with a Spellcraft check". Again, if you only want non-combat or buffing spells, you can ignore it somewhat. We're not even counting the scribing aspects of Wizards. But anyone who ever intends to use an offensive spell is going to want to keep that skill up. [/B]

Concentration can be ignored by any caster, provided they don't cast in melee. A 5' step can fix that. You open combat with a few fireballs at range, then wade into melee. That is a really powerful option. UMD has a fail rate, casting/using the item when you have the class doesn't.

I missed your change in spellcraft, but it doesn't change that much. You can stick to buffs/utility and trust your sword to deal the damage. You can still get FAR more power in spells than you could if you take somthing like 4 levels in wizard, enough that I think they would stack up faster than the EK, which is balanced (more or less)

I know, that's part of why I made it skill-based in the first place. That way, if you decide to take a non-caster level, you can make up for it at a later level. This removes part of the drawback for caster multiclassing. [/B]

Yes, but it means a few levels of a casting class at higher level leads to a large power boost in short span. Everyone would be tempted to fighter at low levels for the HP, AC, and general survivability. At higher levels, they can completely make up the difference in skills. All the benifits of a few levels of fighter with no drawback other than skill points.

So he can cast a good number of level 1 spells per day, at caster level 1. Not exactly the most broken thing I've ever heard of. In fact, that's exactly what I see people doing now: take one level of a caster class (especially a hybrid one like Ranger) and load up on wands. [/B]

Ok, bad example. You focus on the stat that gives you higher level spells, so you only have a few buffs a day but they are really powerful ones.

3> Access to higher-level known spells: still only depends on your class level.

The key is, I DIDN'T change #3. To get to higher-level spells, you still need to take actual class levels. If you take more than 3 non-caster levels you'll never reach the 9th-level spells, but even 1 non-caster level will delay you a bit.

That would be the point I am missing.

I still think skills in D&D are a weak mechanic, else there would more skills used in combat, like attacking and dodging.

 

[James McMurray]

Ok, if they are going to do a PrC, they should do one, and not this bland crap. Only these rare "multiclassing fix" PrC are this boring, and not even all of them. Arcane trickster is a decent fix AND interesting. Eldritch Knight is an incomplete class, compared to the others.

That was a debate for another thread entirely, and one that neither side is likely to win.

 

[drnuncheon]

People can come up with a gazillion fixes in House Rules for problems big and small. When you start talking about that level of change, it becomes pretty pointless, because everyone just does whatever they want for their own campaign. I'm talking about actual published d20 products.

Mmmmmaybe - and this is just a wild-ass guess now - because they couldn't figure out how to fix it in a way that worked well enough that they wanted to put their name on and try to sell for money? Hmm.

Nah, it could never be that simple.

J

 

[drnuncheon]

They already have the foundation for it.

Create new skills for each caster type. Lets call it Arcane Power or Divine Power with specializations of Wizardry, Sorcery, Bardic, Druidic, Clerical, Ranger, or Paladin. Skill ranks in those skills are used for SR checks and either the ranks (perhaps plus skill focus) or character level are used in place of caster level.
Make it cross class for any other class, and make spells per day and spells known based on ranks in this skill.

Congratulations, you have just made rogues the best spellcasters in the game. You thought the Mystic Theurge was bad, what will it be like when he's got all the spells of wizards and clerics plus Improved Evasion and sneak attack?

J

 

[hong]

Mmmmmaybe - and this is just a wild-ass guess now - because they couldn't figure out how to fix it in a way that worked well enough that they wanted to put their name on and try to sell for money? Hmm.

... in other words, thank you for accepting my point that the EK and MT are hacks.

Nah, it could never be that simple.

spawnofapreacherboy does this better than you.

 

[hong]

Exactly. This is 3.5, not 4.0. A reworking of the ruleset of that magnitude would require a new edition. Which makes (in my opinion) the PrC fix the best alternative for 3.5.

Yeah, yeah. If they're going to put ELH crap in the core books, they obviously don't have an aversion to wholesale rules tweaking.

 

[bret]

Congratulations, you have just made rogues the best spellcasters in the game. You thought the Mystic Theurge was bad, what will it be like when he's got all the spells of wizards and clerics plus Improved Evasion and sneak attack?

J

Ranks in a cross-class skill are limited, and that would hold a pure-rogue back. They would have a maximum of 11 ranks at 20th levle (about an 8th level caster) unless they multiclassed.

The other thing that was needed (and I didn't think of until later) was a set of feats; call them Minor Arcana, Arcana, and Greater Arcana. Once again, the feats are for each spelllist. Each requires the preceeding feat. They are needed to be able to cast 1st-4th level spells (minor), 5th - 7th level spells (arcana), and 8th - 9th level spells. Give Minor at 4th level to Rangers and Paladins. Give all three to Druids, Bard, Clerics, Wizards and Sorcerers at the appropriate levels.

I'm fairly certain the mechanics could be worked out, but I'm just not that interested in doing it.

The main thing would be to automatically give spell enablers at the correct levels so that the pure casters aren't paying for the ability to cast higher level spells.

Since this is going heavily into house rules at this point, I'm going to drop the subject.

 

[LokiDR]

That was a debate for another thread entirely, and one that neither side is likely to win.

In a simple compareson between the various "multiclass fix" PrC, there are two different methodologies at play: arcane trickster and eldrich knight.

Regardless of which one you believe to be better at its job, they show different design thought. So, there is a problem: inconsistancy. I expect the designers to create (or at least attempt) to make all PrC equal. These aren't equal: one gets special abilities the other is a negative level adjustment. Equal power perhaps, but not equal style, flavor, or design. When I see a discrepancy like that, I get annoyed. I think rightly.

So, if we are going to be consistant about this, which way should it be? A simple count shows many more "flavored" PrC than bland. So I have to come to the conclusion that PrC should have a flavor of their own.

All I wanted them to do with EK was make a spellsword that was more balanced, as was promised. They haven't, and that annoys me.

 

[James McMurray]

Yeah, yeah. If they're going to put ELH crap in the core books, they obviously don't have an aversion to wholesale rules tweaking.

Rules tweaking is different from rules rewriting. A change to the multi-classing system in order to fit in a balanced Fighter / Wizard would require a major rules rewrite. Much larger than anything that could posibly be included in the ELH section.

Granted, I don't have the DMG yet, so I can't see the ELH section for myself, but I seriously doubt it consists of a major rules rewrite.

 

[James McMurray]

In a simple compareson between the various "multiclass fix" PrC, there are two different methodologies at play: arcane trickster and eldrich knight.

Regardless of which one you believe to be better at its job, they show different design thought. So, there is a problem: inconsistancy. I expect the designers to create (or at least attempt) to make all PrC equal. These aren't equal: one gets special abilities the other is a negative level adjustment. Equal power perhaps, but not equal style, flavor, or design. When I see a discrepancy like that, I get annoyed. I think rightly.

So, if we are going to be consistant about this, which way should it be? A simple count shows many more "flavored" PrC than bland. So I have to come to the conclusion that PrC should have a flavor of their own.

All I wanted them to do with EK was make a spellsword that was more balanced, as was promised. They haven't, and that annoys me.

Except that some (myself included) would argue that the Arcane Trickster is not balanced with the EK. The AT is much more powerful, because it gains practiaclly full advancement in both of its sub-classes, while also gaining special abilities of its own. That would be like giving the EK full spellcasting ability and fighter bonus feats.

When did they promise a more balanced spellsword?

And finally, why should things be consistent? I would much rather have a large assortment of "bland" PrCs that I can easily add to my campaign without having to rewrite the flavor for. It is much easier to add flavor (IMO) then it is to rework flavor.