James McMurray
First Post
I suppose we'll just disagree then.
DMG - Eldritch Knight
- Thread starter SpuneDagr
- Start date
drnuncheon
Explorer
hong said:
Sure. Just like the split with sorcerer/wizard, since they have the same spell list.
Except that there still is a reason for the split: the source of power.
A wizard's source of power is his arduous study. A sorcerer's source of power is innate, in the blood. A cleric's source of power is his deity. Even if they had the same spell list, they access it in different ways and thus could (and should, if you accept the sorcerer/wizard distinction) be different classes.
J
knows someone who played a sorcerer/wizard
Last edited:
drnuncheon said:
The reason for the sorc/wiz split is because they came up with this wonderful new spontaneous casting mechanic to replace AD&D's idiosyncratic learn/memorize rules, and then didn't have the balls to actually ditch the old system. Then they invented some lame-assed "blood of dragons" handwave to justify having two primary arcane spellcasting classes in the game. Not that this stops people from inventing ways of making wizards more like sorcs, and sorcs more like wizards, all the time.
Well, they were stupid then, weren't they?
Must be different classes, like a mounted combatant and a archer must be different? Wait, that is what fighter is for.drnuncheon said:
There is no mechanic reason for that, only history. One spellcasting class makes sense, as it would reduce space and redundancy. Other systems have covered magic with fewer base classes. Why does D&D need 4 main casters?
Just because someone makes a poor mechanical choice doesn't mean it is a good choice.drnuncheon said:
Spatzimaus
First Post
hong said:
Ain't that the truth! 3E D&D is saddled by the fact that it's based on AD&D, which was based on D&D. So, they just refuse to get rid of certain things, even when all common sense says it's time for a change.
They came up with this whole "Prestige Class" concept (which I like), but then shunted it into an "optional" status and only created a few token ones for the DMG. 3.5E tries to fix this, but we're looking at it through the lens of 3E.
Take this whole "Eldritch Knight" debate. Would we still be having it if "Ranger" had been a PrC intended for Rogue/Druid multiclasses? What if "Paladin" was a PrC for Fighter/Clerics? Or "Bard" for Rogue/Sorcerer? Or "Monk" for Fighter/Rogue? Each of these wouldn't have much "flavor" to them.
Suddenly, using "Eldritch Knight" for Fighter/Sorcerers or Fighter/Wizards doesn't seem so bad. But, in 3E, we expect Prestige Classes to be "flavorful", specialized classes, and so the EK looks bad by comparison.
What if the only core classes were Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Sorcerer? (That is, anyone wanting a "Druid" can just be a Cleric of a Nature god). It's the four Gauntlet classes! Think of them like the six d20Modern core classes. Each specializes on a different stat, with different sets of abilities and very little overlap.
If there was an established precedent for using special PrCs to mix these four core classes, instead of the current "you can do that just fine with multiclassing" attitude, then the EK and MT would be just fine. You'd only need a total of 6 PrCs for that, too, and we'd have them:
Ranger: Rogue/Cleric
Paladin: Fighter/Cleric
Mystic Theurge: Sorcerer/Cleric
Bard: Rogue/Sorcerer
Eldritch Knight: Fighter/Sorcerer
Monk: Fighter/Rogue
But, that's just not how it works currently. I do wish they had given the DMG version a bit more flavor; a few skill requirements, some token other abilities at each level, and so on. It could have been like an Arcane Paladin, with a mount replacing the familiar. But, it isn't.
Spatzimaus said:
What silliness. All of these classes have tons more flavour than the EK or the MT. Indeed, it's _because_ these classes fill narrow roles and have unique, specialised abilities, that people tend to treat them as quasi-PrCs.
The d20M class system strikes me as a rather uninspired way of doing things. If your classes are designed around something as abstract and insubstantial as an attribute name, then you might as well ditch them entirely and go classless. You may scare away a few D&D diehards, but the system will be much cleaner for it.
No, they'd _still_ be boring, and they'd _still_ be nothing more than a poor way of covering for bugs in the multiclassing system. Have a look at the d20M advanced classes some time. All of them grant unique abilities, and have flavour of their own, even though they're designed for a system with a highly generic base.
3.5 should be more closely tied to 3e than 3e to AD&D. History maybe annoying, but it keeps the fans comming back. 3.5 isn't even a revision by itself, it is a cleanup with a bit of extention. They need that history, especially in 3.5.Spatzimaus said:
If that was the style the whole game was going, EK and MT would fit. It isn't the way the game is made though, so EK especially sticks out like a sore thumb.Spatzimaus said:
I think the system you propose looks a lot like the skills and powers system. It was half-classes, picking your own progression, and one of the worst systems to manage I have ever seen. That is not a good place to go.
That is a style. Again, that isn't the way the rest of the game is made. Also, that doesn't match the concepts of characters in fantasy. A scout/skermisher is something you should be able to start the game as. Likewise, you should be able to start the game as a divinely called warrior. Abilities should differ from the other classes. Just because you are skilled doesn't mean you should have sneak attack.Spatzimaus said:
And that is why it is lacking.Spatzimaus said:
drnuncheon
Explorer
hong said:
LokiDR said:
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.
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?
hong said:
LokiDR said:
"I shall call you...mini-hong."
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.
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.
J
reapersaurus
Explorer
wow.
there are some GREAT quotes here, mostly by hong:
"Yeah, yeah. They said the same thing when I suggested nerfing haste back in 2001, too."
"Now then, is it DUCK season, or WABBIT season? I can never remember."
"Are you STILL here?"
there are some GREAT quotes here, mostly by hong:
"Yeah, yeah. They said the same thing when I suggested nerfing haste back in 2001, too."
"Now then, is it DUCK season, or WABBIT season? I can never remember."
"Are you STILL here?"
DiFier
First Post
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.
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.
