DMG - Eldritch Knight

[LokiDR]

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.

So tone down the AT or buff up the EK. Power is easily changed by change of a few skill point, class skills, spellcaster levels, or modification of abilites. As strong as AT is, Spellsword is as weak. Perhaps one or both should be changed, but at least there is something there.

When did they promise a more balanced spellsword?

When describing the PrC they were adding to the DMG. The eldritch knight was originally touted as an improved spellsword and the compareson is obvious.

And finally, why should things be consistent?

Why should a game make sense? Why should there be rules at all?

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.

You are ignoring a fact: that isn't the way most of the PrC were designed. It doesn't matter what you or I would choose, only what makes the game work better as a whole.

EK and MT just lack a fundamental quality to work well in a campaign setting. All the other PrC have that flavor. They fit. MT and EK are round pegs in square holes.

Making a flavor in your own game is your responsibility, not the designers. The designers are supposed to make a game that functions as a unit. This is where EK and MT fail. It is like ordering a new part for your computer and getting instructions on how to build it. You might like it, but that isn't what you ordered. D&D should be a complete game out of the box.

 

[drnuncheon]

EK and MT just lack a fundamental quality to work well in a campaign setting. All the other PrC have that flavor.

Making a flavor in your own game is your responsibility, not the designers. The designers are supposed to make a game that functions as a unit. This is where EK and MT fail.

So...

Flavor is your responsibility, not the game designers' - but because the game designers did not provide flavor for the EK and MT, they failed?

J

 

[James McMurray]

Yeah, what he said.

Plus this:

You are ignoring a fact: that isn't the way most of the PrC were designed. It doesn't matter what you or I would choose, only what makes the game work better as a whole.

You too are ignoring a fact: EK and MT were not designed to be standard PrCs. They were specifically meant to patch the multi-classing problem that arcane casters have.

 

[Darkness]

True, "fighter" is pretty bland sounding. Ooh, yeah, someone who fights.

"Warrior" on the toher hand. Now there's a class name with flavor. A character from that class can say, "you merely fight, but I wage war". I think I'll play one of those guys with my next character.

I like the Archmage.

I mean, how can you not love a mage who's dedicated himself to building arches?

 

[hong]

You too are ignoring a fact: EK and MT were not designed to be standard PrCs. They were specifically meant to patch the multi-classing problem that arcane casters have.

Actually, no. For the MT at least, Andy Collins has said that it was _not_ meant to patch multiclassing. It was designed with a specific schtick in mind: the guy who can cast anything, a la the 1E/2E cleric/MU.

To which I say, some schticks just don't fit with D&D's magic system. The arcane/divine split is there for a reason. If you want people who can cast anything, then get rid of the split. There's even a precedent for it; see the shugenja in OA, whose spell list contains all the divine and arcane goodies. Or if you absolutely must have arcane and divine separate, then see Monte's Book of Hallowed Might for the hallowed mage, which fixes up the problem in a much more interesting and flavoursome way.

Similarly, the EK's schtick is the fighter/MU. Here, there's a huge range of choices that are more interesting than the EK. You have the spellsword, and then you have everybody + dog's interpretation of the bladesinger. Just remove the requirement that bladesingers have to be elves, and it's a fine fighter/MU class. Possibly broken, but that's another issue entirely.

 

[hong]

...which is not at all what I was arguing - but if it makes you feel better to claim a 'win', please, by all means, carve another notch on your keyboard.

Are you STILL here?

If, on the other hand, you'd like to present something relevant to what I was saying - which was 'it may be a hack but it's also the best solution so far' - well, feel free to do that as well.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to present something relevant to what I was saying, which is "it's a hack and if this is the best solution, then either they're incompetent or they're not trying", feel free to do that as well.

 

[drnuncheon]

Actually, no. For the MT at least, Andy Collins has said that it was _not_ meant to patch multiclassing. It was designed with a specific schtick in mind: the guy who can cast anything, a la the 1E/2E cleric/MU.

So...it was meant to handle a multiclassed cleric/magic-user, but it wasn't designed to get around the problems of 3e multiclassing? Er...sure, hong, whatever you say.

To which I say, some schticks just don't fit with D&D's magic system. The arcane/divine split is there for a reason. If you want people who can cast anything, then get rid of the split.

That's pretty silly. What if you don't want everybody to be able to cast everything?

Are you STILL here?

Your disdain cuts me to the quick. No, really.

If, on the other hand, you'd like to present something relevant to what I was saying, which is "it's a hack and if this is the best solution, then either they're incompetent or they're not trying", feel free to do that as well.

I'll wait until you start trying, because I doubt that you can come up with anything but a different clumsy hack - and the current clumsy hack is fine for my purposes.

J

 

[hong]

So...it was meant to handle a multiclassed cleric/magic-user, but it wasn't designed to get around the problems of 3e multiclassing? Er...sure, hong, whatever you say.

It's true, I don't believe Andy either.

That's pretty silly. What if you don't want everybody to be able to cast everything?

Then make classes with limited spell lists but other powers to compensate. You know, like the ranger and paladin. Is there anybody home?

The only reason that the cleric/mage exists as a distinct schtick is because of the divine/arcane split. Once you remove that split, there's no reason for cleric/mages any more.

Your disdain cuts me to the quick. No, really.

It must, because you're STILL here.

I'll wait until you start trying, because I doubt that you can come up with anything but a different clumsy hack -

The moment you start paying me money for my rulebook, you'll see my clumsy hack.

and the current clumsy hack is fine for my purposes.

And it isn't for my purposes.

Now then, is it DUCK season, or WABBIT season? I can never remember.

 

[LokiDR]

So...

Flavor is your responsibility, not the game designers' - but because the game designers did not provide flavor for the EK and MT, they failed?

J

Adding your own flavor is your responsibility. They are supposed to give you a complete game, you hack from there.

Which do people buy from Microsoft: instructions on building an operating system or a complete operating system?

 

[LokiDR]

You too are ignoring a fact: EK and MT were not designed to be standard PrCs. They were specifically meant to patch the multi-classing problem that arcane casters have.

Interesting. Do you have any quotes of Andy or other designers saying that these are not "real" PrCs? Are they listed in a different section? Why do some "patch" PrCs have flavor and others don't?

The simple answer: they got lazy. They didn't add any flavor which belongs in all PrC because they it might have taken more time and they had a schedule to keep. There doesn't seem to be any depth in design in the EK. Only a check for rule balance. Balance is only half a good PrC, flavor is the other.