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

[Darklone]

There is the d8 hit points (which is more than what the EK gives you) and Arcane Fist/Hold Ray for the same reasons you want Channel Spell from the Spellsword. Overall a more competent unarmored, unarmed monk-type character. The penalties to hit requires an investment in Arcane Strike but otherwise so-so. If you want something funky (since it's only now I'm actually checking its prerequisites), mix-and-match it with Warlock: ranged (Hadoken!) and melee (Shoryuken!) capabilities.

Arcane Strike synergizes sooo nicely with flurry.

 

[Anthraxus]

If you mean these classes are broken as in "Not really that broken at all," then sure, they're broken.

Kinda like the Mystic Theurge, who everybody and their brother thought was broken(including myself)... Once I saw a couple in actual play- they're not that great.

 

[rgard]

If you mean these classes are broken as in "Not really that broken at all," then sure, they're broken.

Kinda like the Mystic Theurge, who everybody and their brother thought was broken(including myself)... Once I saw a couple in actual play- they're not that great.

Yea! I posted in some of those threads and pondered whether the naysayers had actually played one or watched one played.

Anyway, cool name. One of my 1e characters was named Anthraxus Severus.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Darklone]

Did anyone ever try Stalwart Sorcerer with EK?

 

[charlesatan]

Did anyone ever try Stalwart Sorcerer with EK?

Not with EK but I did with the Phantom Knight from Five Nations (Eberron), which is a buffer EK but with harsher requirements.

I'd also like to point out that the Stalwart Sorcerer is similar to the Battle Sorcerer variant from Unearthed Arcana minus the base attack increase and the loss of af spell slot.

The good news is you're tougher. I last slightly longer in melee. The bad news is that you really, really have a limited spell selection. Which is okay if you're playing them as a warrior-mage (buff, arcane strike, attack). But not okay if you plan on playing him as a regular mage. If you're playing him from the ground up (i.e. level 1), you're similarly making some hard decisions the first few levels by not picking up spells a normal mage would but the good news is that you can arguably engage in melee or snipe with a bow/crossbow.

And remember that Stalwart Sorcerer still doesn't offset the requirements of EK, which is proficiency with all martial weapons.

 

[Felon]

Hmm. Must examine Duskblade/Monk/Enlightened Fist combination further...

 

[I'm Cleo]

I think the issue lies here:

Originally posted by StGabe:

The levels of wizard and fighter are both balanced to be roughly equivalent.

I don't think this is true at all. The 11th through 20th levels of wizard or fighter are vastly more important than the 1st through 10th of the other class. That's why a F10/W10 is completely outclassed by a F20 or W20. The real value in classes comes at the top levels -- to balance out giving up the top levels of a given class, you have to give more than the bottom levels of another. The reductio ad absurdum is a 20th level character with the first level of 20 base classes. I think everyone understands that he would bring almost nothing whatsoever to a 20th level party.

As others have pointed out, it's exactly like Mystic Theurge. Everyone looked at it and said, "Oh my God! This is amazing! This is like two classes in one!" And a few days later, after it was played and builds were analyzed, everyone realized that it didn't really play as good as it looked. Each character, no matter how many options he has, still has just three actions per round.

And has anyone actually played a straight Eldritch Knight? It's just not that great -- I can't imagine anyone's Eldritch Knight outshined other characters mechanically. A friend of mine played pretty well built one in a game with a full wizard and a full fighter, and he constantly felt like he was 85% of the fighter and 85% of the wizard. And, as I suggest above, that's not equal to 170% of a single-classed character.

The role of the Eldritch Knight is problematic, too. If you're emphasizing your wizard side (either through blasting or crowd control), then you're "wasting" all that BAB you have. And if you're going in and fighting, you're either spending a lot of time buffing during combat or "wasting" your spellcasting.

It's a flavor choice -- a neat way to make a useful character that has a different style from straight wizard or straight fighter. Perhaps its design doesn't conform to aesthetic ideals of "balance" and "trade-offs", but in the actual game, it just doesn't blow away other characters.

Gary

 

[charlesatan]

And has anyone actually played a straight Eldritch Knight? It's just not that great -- I can't imagine anyone's Eldritch Knight outshined other characters mechanically. A friend of mine played pretty well built one in a game with a full wizard and a full fighter, and he constantly felt like he was 85% of the fighter and 85% of the wizard. And, as I suggest above, that's not equal to 170% of a single-classed character.

The role of the Eldritch Knight is problematic, too. If you're emphasizing your wizard side (either through blasting or crowd control), then you're "wasting" all that BAB you have. And if you're going in and fighting, you're either spending a lot of time buffing during combat or "wasting" your spellcasting.

Gary

I've played an actual Eldritch Knight (along with a variety of other warrior-mage classes on both sides of the table).

I don't find the role of the Eldritch Knight problematic because I know exactly what his role is. The problem with warrior-mage classes is that some people focus on the mage rather than the warrior. Efficiency wise, the way to play EK isn't in hurling fireballs and lightning bolts but going up close in melee (or range) with all your buffs. Your buffs are your edge over the non-spellcasting warrior (especially buffs that can't be found on most, non-customized magic items). In that way, you don't lose out on BAB nor on your spellcasting.

Second, yes, I have outshined other players in my area of expertise. I define that to be my offensive capabilities. My attack deals more damage than the Barbarian/Fighter/War Mind in our group. But when it comes to tanking, absorbing damage, that's where he outshines me. I have no illusions at the fragility of my character. I'm not intruding in the wizard's area of expertise but I am partially intruding in the warrior-types (I have their offense but not their defense). But at the end of the day, I see warrior-mages as warrior types more than mage-types, which is why I played the prestige class in the first place rather than simply a straight-out warrior or a straight-out mage.

 

[wildstarsreach]

If you mean these classes are broken as in "Not really that broken at all," then sure, they're broken.

Kinda like the Mystic Theurge, who everybody and their brother thought was broken(including myself)... Once I saw a couple in actual play- they're not that great.

I've played from 1st to 20th a Psion/Wizard/Cerebremancer. The mid levels were hard as my character was less powerful than the rest of the party. About 13th was where my character started really showing the power of a class like this that gives full spell progression and or manifester to both classes.

 

[wildstarsreach]

I've played an actual Eldritch Knight (along with a variety of other warrior-mage classes on both sides of the table).

I don't find the role of the Eldritch Knight problematic because I know exactly what his role is. The problem with warrior-mage classes is that some people focus on the mage rather than the warrior. Efficiency wise, the way to play EK isn't in hurling fireballs and lightning bolts but going up close in melee (or range) with all your buffs. Your buffs are your edge over the non-spellcasting warrior (especially buffs that can't be found on most, non-customized magic items). In that way, you don't lose out on BAB nor on your spellcasting.

Second, yes, I have outshined other players in my area of expertise. I define that to be my offensive capabilities. My attack deals more damage than the Barbarian/Fighter/War Mind in our group. But when it comes to tanking, absorbing damage, that's where he outshines me. I have no illusions at the fragility of my character. I'm not intruding in the wizard's area of expertise but I am partially intruding in the warrior-types (I have their offense but not their defense). But at the end of the day, I see warrior-mages as warrior types more than mage-types, which is why I played the prestige class in the first place rather than simply a straight-out warrior or a straight-out mage.

I'm currently playing a Duskblade and find it satisfactory. I'm just start a war of the burning sky with the plans to go Ninja3/F1/Wizard5/Abjurant Champion5/EK6. Yes I'm taking the best and going to play it to my fun. I don't get everything but should have fun doing it.