Revised Eldritch Knight

[Saeviomagy]

There's nothing inherently 'weak' about multiclassing as a spellcaster. That's the biggest fake-out currently going.

Multiclassing is about making choices.
And the decision's not very hard when you can get BOTH spellcasting and BAB (not to mention good HD, good saves, and good special abilities).

Multiclassing is about making choices.

Without PrC's like the EK, MyT and AT, multiclassing a (non-cleric) spellcaster more than a level or two (either into or out of) was a bad choice. It always left you mechanically weak.

As to the proposed class?

2 more lost caster levels = 1 level lower spells.

Still=1 slot higher

So - a traditional EK can simply still all of their spells and not suffer armour penalties. In addition, they'll be able to use some spells without bothering to do that (ie - ones without S components, or ones they don't need to cast while armoured). They'll be able to cast in heavy armour instead of just light. Finally, they'll have some more spells known, and the option to use some higher-levelled spells overall.

Greater combat casting is probably going to be a dead loss - since defensive casting is a dc of 15+spell level, and you already have combat casting, meaning you've got +13 to your rolls when you get it, not counting any possible constitution bonus, the chance of failure is quite slim (about 1 in 20).

The biggie is probably eldritch celerity. Remember you're missing a level of spells here already. Eldritch celerity costs you a level more. Compared with quicken at +4 however, it's pretty good, even if it is limited to being self targeted spells. This is probably powerful enought to make up for previous losses.

However, the class doesn't do what I want such a class to do - give me a viable all-purpose fighter/mage multiclass. Specifically, it seems to be more aimed at a self-buffing, lightly-armoured fighter, which weakens the EK's relatively broad appeal.

 

[reapersaurus]

However, the class doesn't do what I want such a class to do - give me a viable all-purpose fighter/mage multiclass.

You guys are scaring me.

Seriously, what would you require to satisfy your "viable" ftr/mage multiclass?

Full BAB, full spellcasting, d10, no spell failure?

 

[Technik4]

Full BAB, full spellcasting, d10, no spell failure?

No. BAB is irrelevant if you don't have the hp to use it. Spell Failure is irrelevant if you dont have enough spells to make it worthwhile.

The entire structure is built on EL/CL/PL (Party Level) and assumes a general party strength equal to about 1 fighter, 1 rogue, 1 cleric, and 1 wizard.

A party like the following:

Ftr5/Wiz5
Rog6/Sor4
Clr5/Wiz5
Sor10

Will not do as well as its "supposed" to given encounters in the CR system. 1-3rd level spells when encounters assume fourth and fifth are a good way to get a party killed. Compare it to:

Ftr1/Wiz5/Eldritch Knight 4
Rog3/Sor4/Arcane Trickster 3
Clr3/Wiz3/Mystic Theurge 4
Sor10

Is the second party "overpowered"? Its still the same theme, a heavily-arcane party, but which is going to be able to combat CR 10 encounters more easily? Lets break it down:

Ftr5/Wiz5
HP: 10+4d10+5d4 (avg 42.5)
BAB: +7
Spellcasting: Wiz5 (3rd level spells)
Bonus Feats: 4 (3 fighter, 1 wizard)

Ftr1/Wiz5/Elk4
HP: 10+5d4+4d6 (avg 36.5)
BAB: +7
Spellcasting: Wiz8 (4th level spells)
Bonus Feats: 3 (2 fighter, 1 wizard)

The ElK has 1 less feat and 6 less hp, but a lot more spells (Wiz5 vs Wiz8). Both have problems casting spells in armor, so both probably wear Bracers of Armor and fulfill more of a skirmisher-type melee role or an archer role.

Rog6/Sor4
HP: 6+5d6+4d4 (avg 33.5)
BAB: +6
Spellcasting: Sor4 (2nd level spells)
Sneak Attack: +3d6

Rog3/Sor4/ArT3
HP: 6+2d6+7d4 (avg 30.5)
BAB: +5
Spellcasting: Sor7 (3rd level spells)
Sneak Attack: +2d6

The ArT has 1 less sneak attack die, 1 less BAB, no Uncanny Dodge, and 3 less hp, but a lot more spells (sor4 vs sor7). Because it seems to lose a lot compared to the straight multiclass build (and because they didnt want to give the prc UDodge, Trap Sense, etc) especially skills, the arcane trickster has special things it can do 1/day, or eventually a few times per day.

Clr5/Wiz5
HP: 8+4d8+5d4 (avg 38.5)
BAB: +5
Spellcasting: Clr3 (2nd level spells), Wiz3 (2nd level spells)

Clr3/Wiz3/MyT4
HP: 8+2d8+7d4 (avg 34.5)
BAB: +5
Spellcasting: Clr7 (4th level spells), Wiz7 (4th level spells)

Obviously losing out on a few hp (and probably a few points on the fort save) haven't made this one sting very bad. The MyT is easily the most powerful of the multiclass patch prcs because of the double spellcasting.

Sor10
HP: 4+9d4 (avg 26.5)
BAB: +5
Spellcasting: Sor10 (5th level spells)

While these stats may not show it, this is the most powerful character out of all the ones listed. A Feeblemind would take any of the preceding out of the fight, the ability to teleport lets it fight on its own terms, a Wall of Force could trap either party with no way out, she can fly all day and turn any of the others into toads for her own amusement, and likely she has some permanent spells on her person. Her dispel magics have a high chance of dispelling buffs any of the others might have (at full +10 bonus), and against CRs of her level she adds a +10 (or more depending on feats) to her SR check.

Multiclassing is all about choices, but inherently you diversify yourself - diluting your strengths. When it comes to spellcasting you can dilute yourself into a corner, being so weak that you may not meaningfully affect combat at all (see the Clr5/Wiz5 for more info). These prcs patch the problem, that multiclassing with spellcasting classes (specifically wizard or sorceror) dilutes a character too much. Yes, its nice they can heal and cast fireballs, but what the party really needs is a teleport or a banishment, or for that fireball to actually hit the enemy, etc.

If this agrument doesn't even sway you, then you won't be swayed. Note that the above is assuming a face-less DM, one with no sympathy for his party. Certainly you can make allowances, any party CAN work, its all in the hands of the DMs, etc. Its just good to have a balanced system to begin with, which makes less work for all the dms.

Technik

 

[reapersaurus]

Your argument is well-detailed, but it's premise doesn't hold with me.

You base your argument on comparing bad multiclassing examples (Wiz5/Clr5).
I don't see why a primary spellcasting class should be multiclassing.
It's part and parcel of the gig - if you wanna cast spells, than cast spells. If you want to fight, don't dilute your levels with those of casting.

I just literally don't see a problem with wizard multiclassing, because I view a wizard as a solo class. With enough spellcasting, he can fill in for almost anyone's role. He can be sneaky, he can do hellacious damage, he can Polymorph into a better form for combat, he has utility spells, divination, he can even Transform himself into a good fighter. Why would he want any other class but more Wizard (other than a broken PrC, of course)?

and we all know how much better a cleric can be in combat than a fighter.

All I see when mages say "I want to multiclass" is "I want the best of both worlds".
And with these new PrC's that let the wizard do it, I see "I don't want to pay for the advantages."

You know what - if WotC made a Paladin PrC that gave full cleric spellcasting + the benefits of a Paladin, than I'd say Go have fun with your AT, MyT and EK.
But I can't, because Paladins are screwed when it comes to multiclassing.... STILL. And there's a hell of a lot more cross-over between Paladins and either fighters or clerics than there are any other classes. IOW, there's more justification (in and out of game) for a Cleric PrC that grants almost full spellcasting + Paladin benefits than for the trio of cheesy Wizard PrCs.

 

[Saeviomagy]

You guys are scaring me.

Seriously, what would you require to satisfy your "viable" ftr/mage multiclass?

Full BAB, full spellcasting, d10, no spell failure?

Do you practice, or does it come naturally. I thought that section of my post was quite clearly a comparison between this revised EK and the original EK.

You know what - if WotC made a Paladin PrC that gave full cleric spellcasting + the benefits of a Paladin, than I'd say Go have fun with your AT, MyT and EK.
But I can't, because Paladins are screwed when it comes to multiclassing.... STILL. And there's a hell of a lot more cross-over between Paladins and either fighters or clerics than there are any other classes. IOW, there's more justification (in and out of game) for a Cleric PrC that grants almost full spellcasting + Paladin benefits than for the trio of cheesy Wizard PrCs.

You mean like the Hospitaller from defenders of the faith? Run along.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I don't see it at all.

There was a long time where I looked through the spell list, and went "Wow. Stoneskin would be great to have as a fighter. And dude, that spell summons a +4 weapon!" I still think that there's a good range somewhere for a fighter caster who isn't a cleric (who makes a great fighter caster). And from the arguements, though I never tried it myself, appearently multiclassing with a fighter into an arcane caster gets one the shaft. I can see how being a decent fighter with low level spells could be difficult. And I can see how being a decent mage who can't really fight too well would suck.

But anyway, on topic, I have a couple complaints about this class. The foremost: "Flavor text goes here." Ultimately, without that flavor, I can't really judge your PRC as well as I'd like. Sure, it's a bit more knightish than the original, I suppose. But is this meant to be an armored warrior who unleashes spells into the midst of battle, a wizard who realized that adventuring without armor is a bad idea, a light fighter who casts spells, a warrior with a special bond with his weapon, or just a better version of the multiclass fighter/mage?

From some of your earlier comments, the class seems to be aimed at a spellcasting weaponsmaster. In which case, it seems a little bland. If the class is trying to fill the role of the original EK (a generic multiclass) then it's a bit too focused.

Anyway, the entry requirements do seem a little high. Weapon Expertise? Weapon Focus? Those do add quite a bit of burn to what is needed to get into the class.

I'm not overly fond of the weapon attunement either, aside from the somatic portion of it.

Knowledge (nobility) and Sense Motive seem to hearken back to some paladin roots, but aside from that the skill selection seems good.

Clerity is a good idea. I would have done it more like a domain spell than a metamagic feat, but it serves its intended purpose either way.

All and all it's a pretty good multiclass. I'd just reccomend taking it more strongly in the flavor direction. Trying to keep it generic is just hurting a lot of the delivery.

Did you try to build this from the EK from the beginning? I probablly would have started from a bard and pulled inspriation from the cleric and EK. Why? The bard forms the basis for a hybrid fighter arcane caster(coming out slightly ahead of a fighter wizard, I believe) and the generic idea is angling for a cleric who can cast arcane spells.

And I'm wondering now, due to Saeviomagy's comments just what other sorts of goals there are for warrior/casters. I can see fighters who use spells to enhance their fighting ability, fighters who unleash dangerous magical attacks, and mages who don't crumple like tissue paper. But I'm sure there are more.