Nonlethal Force said:
I believe I already conceeded the "higher level spell" case - and I did it rather politely, I thought. And I do also believe that I also said that if the focus was on spell selection that the straight up caster with full spellcasting progression was better. I think I stated that rather politely as well. I see no reason to argue with that. But if "absolutely maximized offensive" casting is not the player's main goal - and there are plenty of alternatives to spellcasting that are not focused on "absolutely maximized offensive output" - the EK is still a valid choice. I could build a very effective illusionist who convinces the enemy to surrender because I have a big friend (who may be an illusion to me) and not even risk the fight. And I can do that just fine with the Practiced Spellcaster feat - just as well as any full wizard. My point is that there are other ways to gain XP and other ways to build a character besides " absolutely maximized offensive" damage output. My point is valid - no need to attack it.
The problem is that, no matter what kind of spellcasting you plan on doing with an eldritch knight, whether it's illusions and trickery, convincing the enemy to surrender, charming them, summoning monsters, etc, a single classed wizard will always be able to do more of it and do it better than an eldritch knight.
It doesn't matter what you're building a character for--maximized damage output (which is what I thought a ray specialist was supposed to be about--otherwise he'd be an illusions and trickery or a summoning specialist, etc.) , illusions and trickery, conjuring and summoning, etc--if you plan on doing it exclusively with spells, a single class wizard or sorcerer will do more of it and do it better than an eldritch knight.
An eldritch knight can do all of those things (and at least for illusions and battlefield control, Practiced Spellcaster is completely unnecessary) but unless he's planning on mixing it up with a sword or bow, he's just like an ordinary wizard who lost two levels. The only things Eldritch Knight gets that sorcerers and wizards don't is BAB, weapon proficiencies and an average of 10 hp (well those and Sense Motive as a class skill). None of those will make up for having to use lower level illusion, summoning, or battlefield control spells.
Now, if you DO plan to hit things with your sword (or bow, though there aren't nearly as many ways to make that work for you), you can make good use of the ability to do battlefield control, illusions, and everything else. When the situation calls for it, you shape the battlefield. Then you open up on your enemies with the sword/guisarme/whatever is handy. The spells that do those tend to retain their usefulness longer and be less DC dependent than straight-up blaster spells, so you can still make them useful even if you've got a stat and feat distribution aimed for a combatant wizard. (For instance, str 14, dex 14, con 14, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 10 with Power Attack, Cleave, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Quicken Spell, Combat Reflexes, Arcane Strike, and Quickdraw).
The ability to use power word blind, Otto's irresistable dance and then to start fighting after you've taken care of two enemies is well worth having. But if you plan on sealing the victory with fireballs instead of a sword after that, you're better off with a class that gives you more fireballs instead of one that gives you the ability to use a sword.
This I actually take exception to. I have stated several valid options for building legitimate EKs who are not based on maximum spell damage as their character idea. I have even conceeded that a straight spellcaster will always do better at damage causing spells because they have higher level spell. But there is no reason to demean or devalue my assertion simply because your viewpoint only considers damaging spells. I did not come here to be made to look stupid or to be demeaned. I posted here because I like to encourage people to expand their mind beyond using spell selection only to encompas maximum damage output. There are other ways to play besides "kill/kill/kill." Tricking the enemy, bluffing the enemy, and even hog-tying the enemy are all valid possibilities - possibilities that an EK can accomplish quite nicely.
You can demean my post all you would like, but I simply do not appreciate it. Do have a good day, however.
Then I apologize for the poke. I don't mean to imply that kill/kill/kill is the only way to play or that maximum damage is the only goal for a spellcaster. However, that said, none of the roles you mention benefit as significantly from Eldritch Knight as they are hindered by having fewer and weaker spells. Whether you want to trick the enemy with spells, bluff them with spells (and if you want to bluff them without spells... Bluff is a class skill for sorcerers but not Eldritch Knights), or hog-tie them with spells, you will do it better with more and higher level spells than you will with more BAB and a few more HP.
Eldritch Knights are wizards who are good at fighting. If your wizard doesn't want to fight then you should probably look at a different prestige class or class combination.
