Warrior-Mage Prestige Classes: which are viable & which are not

[pawsplay]

I don't know why everyone disses on the EK. It gives up not so much, and gets a nicely balanced package. Two caster levels for BAB viability? I'll take it. It would be reasonable even for a character you plan on playing as a straight up mage, but needs BAB for rays a few hit points. The lack of armor is a non-issue for a character with nearly full caster progression; when you have magic bracers, a shield spell going, mirror image, and blur going, your fighter friends will be weeping with envy. And there is nothing stopping you from putting on full adamantine plate from time to time and wading into combat with wands, or after casting Tenser's transformation.

If nothing else, it's better than Fighter 1/Sorcerer 6/whatever under 3.0, which I played and which was viable.

 

[Goblyn]

I don't know why everyone disses on the EK. It gives up not so much, and gets a nicely balanced package ... etc

I'm of the same opinion. When I first saw the EK, that's the type of character I had in mind: straight up spellcaster who wasn't as squishy as one would expect. A no-brainer for a sorcerer.

 

[wildstarsreach]

I don't know why everyone disses on the EK. It gives up not so much, and gets a nicely balanced package. Two caster levels for BAB viability? I'll take it. It would be reasonable even for a character you plan on playing as a straight up mage, but needs BAB for rays a few hit points. The lack of armor is a non-issue for a character with nearly full caster progression; when you have magic bracers, a shield spell going, mirror image, and blur going, your fighter friends will be weeping with envy. And there is nothing stopping you from putting on full adamantine plate from time to time and wading into combat with wands, or after casting Tenser's transformation.

If nothing else, it's better than Fighter 1/Sorcerer 6/whatever under 3.0, which I played and which was viable.

I agree that the Eldritch Knight is well balanced. Most people I think want the ability to wear the heaviest armors, fight equal to a fighter and be superior to either a fighter or wizard/sorcerer.

I'm sorry but if you get 80% of both classes, I think that the overall results will be superior to either classes.

Every suggestion that I have seen on this list has varying degrees of success. None of them lets you fight equally as good as a fighter and cast as good as a wizard. They come close. But then this is the power creep that others have talked about.

 

[StGabe]

Yes, I meant Eldritch Kight. Just had warrior on my tongue and it came out.

... which can all be cast, with greater efficacy, by the single-classed wiz or cleric in the party.

Then apparently you don't need a fighter/wizard at all. Or are you assuming that you are going to be able to outdo the wizard as a wizard AND be a fully functional fighter?

What is so hard about the concept that you have to give up a significant amount of ability in order to combine classes. Everyone knows that gestalt classes are way more powerful and only work if consciously balanced otherwise, so why do people seem to think that prestige classes which are basically just gestalt fighter/wizard's (one of the most potent gestalt combos of course) aren't broken?

This is just a different version of "but if I can't get wish at level 17 I'm not broken." If you want Wish at level 17, be a wizard. You know, there's actually a reason why wizard's have a crappy hit die and BAB in the first place. It's called a trade off.

 

[Felix]

why do people seem to think that prestige classes which are basically just gestalt fighter/wizard's ... aren't broken?

Because they contan the flaws of the classes that the gestalt rules skirt around. The Eldrich Knight (EK) is going to be leery of melee combat with all those d4 HD and no armor; he will lack the combat abilities that melee classes provide (Fighter feats, Ranger fav. enemy, Barb rage...); the gains he makes in his martial skills (if he ever makes use of them) will be paid for in his spellcasting: he has lost one full spell level; he has lost two caster levels (which can be made up with Practiced Spellcaster, but that cost a feat).

The gestalt rules allow characters to maneuver around these drawbacks, and that's why they're powerful.

The EK encourages melee with full BAB, but discourages with d4 HD and no armor.

The Spellsword encourages casting with the ability to wear armor and channel spells, but discourages it by miserly mitigating ASF% and 1/2 spellcasting progression.

The Bladesinger allows free Quickening, but disallows armor, shields, weapons other than rapiers and only grants 1/2 casting progression.

---

How are they not broken? Because for every advantage you reap there is an associated price you pay.

 

[StGabe]

Because they contan the flaws of the classes that the gestalt rules skirt around. The Eldrich Knight (EK) is going to be leery of melee combat with all those d4 HD and no armor; he will lack the combat abilities that melee classes provide (Fighter feats, Ranger fav. enemy, Barb rage...); the gains he makes in his martial skills (if he ever makes use of them) will be paid for in his spellcasting: he has lost one full spell level; he has lost two caster levels (which can be made up with Practiced Spellcaster, but that cost a feat).

The EK is significantly better than the core wizard at melee, even with lower hps and armor (and they get d6 hps). And why should he NEED other fighter feats? He is already a fully fledged wizard. The wizard is in fact giving up very little for all these abilities. You are complaining only that they don't have it all. I.e. that they are only 90% of a gestalt fighter/mage and not 100%. Gee, that's rough.

Let me repeat this:

Wizards have the lowest hit die and the lowest BAB for a reason. A level 20 wizard is almost certainly of the most powerful characters in the core game. They don't need even more power.

A more accurate title for this thread would be:

What are the best broken rules out there to use in order to get around all the pesky limitations built into the wizard to make up for all the inherent power already in the base class.

 

[StGabe]

Also the Bladesinger and Spellsword do at least give up some spell progression for their abilities. That is a step in the right direction even though the Spellsword is still, overall, too powerful when compared to the base classes or, well, almost any of the non-arcane caster prestige classes (haven't looked at the Bladesinger).

The wizard has already essentially lost everything for their casting power. There is a little bit of room to take away their feats and give them something else with full caster progression but even that isn't much. In order to really give them significant additional powers in a PrC the first step is to cut their caster progression because that's all they have to give, their spells are just that powerful. Once you do that you can start building in some other stuff. But then you have to look at what you are adding in. Are you giving most of the benefits of a fighter? Ok, then that class is already pretty close to balanced and there isn't much room for a spell progression left.

 

[charlesatan]

I'll throw in one other warrior-mage prestige class which a lot of people overlook: Dragonslayer from Draconimicon: 1/2 spellcasting progression, fighter BAB, d10 hit points. Of course it's a bit thematic (slaying dragons) and hard to qualify (in the sense that you need at least Dex 13 to qualify for Dodge) but otherwise a nice complement to prestige classes like Spellsword and Eldritch Knight or just plain Abjurant Champion.

Flavor-wise there's also the Rage Mage from Complete Warrior but aside from getting low-level spells with relatively high DC's, there's not much else going for it.

 

[hong]

Then apparently you don't need a fighter/wizard at all.

Correct. In other words, a f/w is superfluous to many requirements, unless artificially pumped up. (I don't particularly like fixes like the eldritch knight, but they do serve a purpose.)

Or are you assuming that you are going to be able to outdo the wizard as a wizard AND be a fully functional fighter?

Nobody said anything about outdoing the wizard or the fighter.

The wizard, in the situation you seem to have in mind, has mage armor, cat's grace, true strike, invisibility, blur, fly, haste, displacement, etc, etc, etc, all cast at a higher caster level so they either do more damage, last longer or both. He ALSO has stoneskin, greater invis, wall of force, contact other plane, disintegrate, finger of death, tenser's, power word X, ethereal jaunt, horrid wilting, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, the f/w has roughly BAB=level x 3/4. The fighter has BAB=level AND a feat every 2 levels, extra hit points, and most likely higher Str and Con due to not having to pump Int.

Heck, the wiz also has more class skills than the f/w, so can outshine him even in purely mundane noncombat stuff!

What is so hard about the concept that you have to give up a significant amount of ability in order to combine classes.

Why is this a good thing? Is a ftr/barb supposed to give up a significant amount of ability? What about a ftr/rogue?

Everyone knows that gestalt classes are way more powerful and only work if consciously balanced otherwise, so why do people seem to think that prestige classes which are basically just gestalt fighter/wizard's (one of the most potent gestalt combos of course) aren't broken?

You seem to have misunderstood the concept of gestalt. A gestalt f/w is a full fighter AND a full wizard at the same time. He has d10 HD, high BAB plus all the spells of a single-classed wizard. Nobody said anything about getting a gestalt.

This is just a different version of "but if I can't get wish at level 17 I'm not broken." If you want Wish at level 17, be a wizard.

Nobody said anything about wish at level 17 either.

 

[charlesatan]

The EK is significantly better than the core wizard at melee, even with lower hps and armor (and they get d6 hps). And why should he NEED other fighter feats? He is already a fully fledged wizard. The wizard is in fact giving up very little for all these abilities. You are complaining only that they don't have it all. I.e. that they are only 90% of a gestalt fighter/mage and not 100%. Gee, that's rough.

Not necessarily. There are arguably two ways to play an Eldritch Knight:

1) Goes toe to toe with other opponents and uses his buffs to give him an edge (the feat Arcane Strike also gets frequently used here along with the spell Wraithstrike). Arguably he can deal more damage than your regular Fighter but his defense is lacking (d6 hit points). Here I see a fair trade-off: EK's can't tank.

2) Behave like a normal wizard, staying in the back while casting spells like fireball, lightning bolt, etc. I think this is what you perceive as "unbalanced" because he's essentially a wizard with d6 hit points and Fighter BAB (which means his rays have a higher chance of hitting). But from personal experience, d6 is a little improvement from d4 and the two level caster loss is huge (one level loss if you managed to somehow acquire martial weapon proficiency). At 20th-level, the difference between caster level 20th and 18th might seem neglible but it is at almost every other level. At 12th level, it's the difference between casting chain lightning (12d6 damage) or sticking to cone of cold (10d6). At 16th-level, it's the difference between being able to cast Horrid Wilting or simply using a Delayed Blast Fireball.

And I'd also like to point out that warrior-mages have been around even in 3.0, even before prestige classes like Eldritch Knights or Spellswords. They're called Clerics and Druids.