Eldritch Knight: Counterpart to the Arcane Trickster and Mys

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Eldritch Knight: Counterpart to the Arcane Trickster and

Post by Username17 »

I'm currently not sold on the first part of that statement, since even the sacrifice of a 1st-level spell give you better-than-weapon-specialization for one round.


If you are highly devoted to melee combat, this is probably not true.

Weapon Specialization grants +2 damage which is multiplyable by crits and other damage multiplication effects.

Arcane Strike, in this case, grants a +2.5 damage bonus which is not multiplied by anything.

So if you are swinging a keen scimitar, Weapon Specialization is adding +2.6 damage per hit, and arcane strike is adding +2.5 damage per hit on that round. Now Arcane Strike is also adding +1 to-hit, so it's still pulling ahead in this example - but if you were using Lion's Charge with a Lance, the Weapon Specialization would be giving you +4.2 damage per hit or more, while the Arcane Strike is still only forking over +2.5.

So I guess my question is: How would the numbers on Arcane Strike need to be changed to make it a viable feat?


I don't think it can be without becoming abusive.

As is, Arcane Strike uses up spell slots which could better be spent upon buffs up unto the point where you don't have any more buffs left to cast and still have spell slots. This means that the opportunity cost of actually using the feat is higher than you would be willing to pay unless it was giving comparable bonuses in one round to what you would expect to get over the entire course of a buff spell (many of which last all day), or it's zero, depending upon how many caster levels you have and how big your spell book is.

And if it gives bonuses that good it's kind of like having quicken spell and some kind of crazy spell condensation feat at the same time and is overpowered. But if it gives bonuses of any kind when the opportunity cost has bottomed it's basically free money - which is problematic in its own way.

In order to get to the free money stage you need to have a lot of investment in Arcane Spellcaster Levels. This means:

1> Your BAB sucks. Even as an Eldritch Knight.
2> Your AC Sucks.
3> Your hit points suck.

Which means that you have no business being in melee combat at all.

Unless your Arcane Strike somehow made up for all of it. And it has to do it all in the absence of Tenser's Transformation.

And if your Arcane Strike makes up for all of that - which basically means that it by itself transforms the party's worst melee fighter into Jet Li - you've made a character who is outshining the Fighter and still being the party wizard. I don't think that's desirable.

Now, if I was going to try to fix Arcane Strike, I wouldn't try to jack the numbers up on it until it was a viable overall character strategy - that way lies madness. There's a number of ways I could go about it:

* If I thought that the Eldritch Knight was a viable strategy for filling holes in the game system - which I don't - then I would simply take Arcane Strike as is and give it out for free as a class feature fo the EK. After all, you are giving up something (a spell) every time you use it - so it's not really an ability at all.

* If I wanted to make Fighter/Wizards viable, I would make Arcane Strike into a method by which you could cast spells and swing swords at the same time, rather than as a method to expend spells to improve sword blows or sword blows to improve spells. In order to be viable as a Fighter and a Wizard at the same time - you have to be able to actually cast spells and fight at the same time.

So if I wanted Arcane Strike fixed, I'd make it a lot more like [counturl=1]this[/counturl] than it is right now.

That's a big if, but there you go.

-Username17
Post Reply