D&D 3E/3.5 [3.5] Eldritch knight abilities?

[Mike Sullivan]

You missed the point. No, I think you are ignoring it.

I could say the same of you.

I originally protested about EK being boring as hell but balanced. It needed something to make it more interesting. ASF is a good flavor, fitting concept and not too powereful. I don't care about ASF, but the class needs SOMETHING.

If it's balanced now, if you add something else, then something that's presently there should go. If the class is supposed to appeal to people who want a more-balanced Fighter/Wizard, then it seems to me to be pretty transparently obvious that one shouldn't sacrifice actual Fighter or Wizard abilities for something to satisfy your arbitrary demands for a unique ability.

Let me try another tack, since you don't seem to grasp my present line of argument:

It is far from inconceivable that a GM might globally disallow PrC's, because they don't like the whole concept of "highly specialized people who are fundamentally different from the mass of other adventurers/important people, who get abilities that nobody else can get, no matter what their experience."

The PrC's which are meant to fix holes in the game's generic system should be as inoccuous as possible to that kind of thinking. It should not be inconceivable for a GM to say, "I'm disallowing all PrC's except for Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster, because those aren't 'real' PrC's."

 

[PeterLind]

What I would like to see is a 20 level core class that combines the abilities of the fighter, sorcerer, and spellsword. Call it an Eldritch Knight. I would be fine with the same spell progression as the bard up to level 6 spells. The spell list would be oriented towards invocation, abjuration, alteration, and conjuration (not illusion, enchantment, or necromancy). Also some limited divination. There could be some unique spells as well, like the bard has. I also would like to see a d8 hit die and good progression in Fort and Will saves. As a balancing factor, the class would have less skills per level and less class abilities than the bard. The class would also be able to cast spells in medium armor.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

What I would like to see is a 20 level core class that combines the abilities of the fighter, sorcerer, and spellsword. Call it an Eldritch Knight. I would be fine with the same spell progression as the bard up to level 6 spells. The spell list would be oriented towards invocation, abjuration, alteration, and conjuration (not illusion, enchantment, or necromancy). Also some limited divination. There could be some unique spells as well, like the bard has. I also would like to see a d8 hit die and good progression in Fort and Will saves. As a balancing factor, the class would have less skills per level and less class abilities than the bard.

There's a 20-level variant class just like this in Malladin's Gate's latest PDF release Forgotten Heroes: Sorcerer. It's called the Eldritch Warrior. It has: d8 HD, cleric BAB, fighter saves, casts spells as a sorcerer with a slightly slower spell progression (spell levels cap out at 6th) but access to the full sorcerer list, fighter weapon proficiencies, familiar, some bonus feats, etc. Balanced-wise it's a good middle ground between the fighter and sorcerer.

 

[Skaros]

There's a 20-level variant class just like this in Malladin's Gate's latest PDF release Forgotten Heroes: Sorcerer. It's called the Eldritch Warrior. It has: d8 HD, cleric BAB, fighter saves, casts spells as a sorcerer with a slightly slower spell progression (spell levels cap out at 6th) but access to the full sorcerer list, fighter weapon proficiencies, familiar, some bonus feats, etc. Balanced-wise it's a good middle ground between the fighter and sorcerer.

Hmm...doesn't sound like it gains too much over a lvl 10/10 fighter/sorcerer, really.

Lets see:

Both end up with +15/+10/+5 BAB
The EW ends up with 6th lvl spells, vs. the 5th lvl spells of the multiclass version.
The multiclass gets 6 fighter bonus feats, 10 lvls of familiar.

Does the EW get anything substantial that the multiclass doesnlt, like ability to cast in armor, etc?

Just curious.

Skaros

 

[LokiDR]

I could say the same of you.

You entirely misstated my position, intention, and most of my comments on this thread. That is why I think you are ignoring them.

If it's balanced now, if you add something else, then something that's presently there should go. If the class is supposed to appeal to people who want a more-balanced Fighter/Wizard, then it seems to me to be pretty transparently obvious that one shouldn't sacrifice actual Fighter or Wizard abilities for something to satisfy your arbitrary demands for a unique ability.

Yes, the class is so perfectly balanced that the addition or removal of any ability will cause it to be unbalanced. If toughness was added at 5th level, the whole thing would fall apart.

Umm, no.

Let me try another tack, since you don't seem to grasp my present line of argument:

It is far from inconceivable that a GM might globally disallow PrC's, because they don't like the whole concept of "highly specialized people who are fundamentally different from the mass of other adventurers/important people, who get abilities that nobody else can get, no matter what their experience."

The PrC's which are meant to fix holes in the game's generic system should be as inoccuous as possible to that kind of thinking. It should not be inconceivable for a GM to say, "I'm disallowing all PrC's except for Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster, because those aren't 'real' PrC's."

If a DM wants to dissallow PrC, they are saying that specilization or expansion of abilities does not fit in their game. So, any case that would require expansion of abilities to work well would not be possible. I don't think you will find any person who is a lawer and a professional athleet and does pretty well at each. Is that because no one wants to? Or is it because excelling at those two different carreers just doesn't work? Fighter wizards just don't work. If you want to change that, it goes in the same realm as a person that wants to super-specialize in hiding as an example.

But, there is a better reason that your arguement is bad. You are throwing out a large chunck of rules! Don't you think that is rather silly in a rules arguement? If a DM wants to allow broader characters but not specialized characters, he can bloody well use more base classes or other do some other rule change. The rules are not designed to be focused on being changed. They are supposed to work together.

EK is boring, and something should have been added to the class to make it more unique, befitting those who go down this path.

 

[Technik4]

EK is boring, and something should have been added to the class to make it more unique, befitting those who go down this path.

I'd say give Virtual Bonus Feats of Toughness at 5th and Endurance at 10th. Now that's flavor!

Technik

sorry just couldn't resist...

 

[Mike Sullivan]

You entirely misstated my position, intention, and most of my comments on this thread. That is why I think you are ignoring them.

No, Loki, I really didn't. I may not have read your mind, but I've consistently responded to what you said on this thread. You harped on, and on, and on, and on about ASF reduction. I mentioned in a throw-away comment that I wasn't really talking about your harping on, and on, and on, and on about ASF reduction -- but that I was responding to another poster altogether!

Now, that you've decided that when you harped on, and on, and on about ASF reduction, what you really meant was that you were harping on, and on, and on about some unnamed "flavor" ability that you haven't come up with any other examples for, it's:

1. Not my fault for not telepathically understanding that.

2. Even if I did somehow know that whenever you said, "ASF Reduction," you meant, "a generic ability," using your OWN shorthand for a "a generic ability," in a comment about what I'm NOT talking about, in a reply NOT TO YOU, hardly constitutes "misstating your entire position, intention, and most of your comments on this thread."

Yes, the class is so perfectly balanced that the addition or removal of any ability will cause it to be unbalanced. If toughness was added at 5th level, the whole thing would fall apart.

There's a strawman for the ages. Nice set up to the idea that any class must either be "perfectly balanced," or will "fall apart."

Not to mention the segue from talking about a significant ability to arguably the least powerful feat in the game.

You know, I won't think less of you if you just post something about, "Let's agree to disagree." I will think less of you if your posts increasingly become diversionary tactics ("Mike doesn't really understand me!") and logical fallacies (the strawman argument).

If a DM wants to dissallow PrC, they are saying that specilization or expansion of abilities does not fit in their game.

That's possibly the most ludicrous statement I've seen this week. Surely you don't seriously think that a GM who globally disallowed PrC's is against "specialization or expansion of abilities." I mean, unless he also disallows levelling.

So, any case that would require expansion of abilities to work well would not be possible. I don't think you will find any person who is a lawer and a professional athleet and does pretty well at each. Is that because no one wants to? Or is it because excelling at those two different carreers just doesn't work? Fighter wizards just don't work. If you want to change that, it goes in the same realm as a person that wants to super-specialize in hiding as an example.

1. I am sympathetic to those who say that they don't think that Fighter/Wizards (or similar classes) should work. Broadly speaking, I disagree with them, but it's a matter of taste.

2. However, according to the design team, the lack of effective fighter/wizard multiclassing was not a goal of the 3e design team, but a bug in the system. If someone could come up with a sufficiently elegent solution to the problem in the core multiclassing rules, they'd implement it.

3. Thus, no, it doesn't go without saying that a GM who is opposed to traditional PrC's is opposed to effective Fighter/Wizard multiclassing.

4. As an example, I am broadly speaking opposed to traditional PrC's (I would have perhaps a few narrow specializations that actually reflected actual groups in my campaign world, but not the dozens of "official" ones). At this point, knowing what I do about the EK, I would be okay with adding it in as an exception to my usual feeling that PrC's would have to be tightly bound to my campaign world.

But, there is a better reason that your arguement is bad. You are throwing out a large chunck of rules!

Which large chunk of rules? The wholly optional PrC's?

Don't you think that is rather silly in a rules arguement?

No, I don't think it's at all silly to discuss D&D with the assumption that a large number of GM's are skeptical of a given optional rule.

EK is boring, and something should have been added to the class to make it more unique, befitting those who go down this path.

Restating your thesis over and over is not an argument for your thesis.

 

[Camarath]

IMO the Eldritch Kight is an add your own flavor prestige class. That is how I like prestige classes. Organizational prestige classes are fine but rather annoying if I don't want to use the organization and the class has relic abilities that don't make sense apart for the organization. The class it's self might not be very interesting but that doesn't mean you can't make an interesting character using it.

 

[Camarath]

If you want to avoid ASF and have a decent armor bonus I would suggest you go with a Blended Quartz (AEG) Chain Shirt with Elven Darkleaf, Elven Leafweave, Entropium, Blended Quartz (all AEG) or Mithral Chahar-aina (OA) and Dastana (OA) for an AC of +6 with no ASF. You can add a Blended Quartz Large Shield to bring it to +8. Not that bad if I do say so myself only 2 points behind a fighter in full plate with a large shield. Your ACP would be -4 (or -6 depending on your choices) but you would still be in light armor and your max dex bonus would be +4.

 

[Henry]

I see the arguments for and against the EK, and I see the arguments for and against Arcane Spell Failure, and two things come to mind:

1) He's an Eldritch Knight. He shouldn't be wearing armor. He should be depending on his spells to protect him - after all, he's going to be AT LEAST 6th level, correct? There should and will be plenty of spells to give him the defense he needs.

2) This class would work BEAUTIFULLY with a master of Rays and Touch attacks. An eldritch knight armed with negative energy rays, scorching rays, flame arrows (if they exist), melf's arrows, and other sundry spells will be a very powerful character, who doesn't need protection if the enemy doesn't survive.

The flavor of being a fighting spellcaster is pretty good by itself (cleric, anyone?). Whatever flavor I wish to add can be added by me; after all, the PrC has to fit in my campaign.

Besides, does anyone remember that Ed Stark said in the Mortality Interview in March that each PrC in the guide was an EXAMPLE of how to build a class for a specific purpose? Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, and Thaumaturgist are excellent examples of a prestige class that made a certain character concept viable. Red Wizard was an example of flavor-specific prestige classes - and a darned good one.