Latest Spellsword Change

You have questions? We may have answers.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs

User avatar
susitsu
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by susitsu » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:59 am

Even then, people over-play the idea of dispelling battle-clerics. All competent battle-clerics I have known walk around full buffed, and even if you hit them with a Mord's, you just wasted a round/half a round on them coming to kill you with most of their extremely important buffs entirely untouched. The whole constantly thrown out idea of "dispel bait" is literally not relevant.

In some regards, spellsword is being hit too hard, while shadow mage and the largely unmentioned fact that it loses out on TWO SCHOOLS, NOT JUST EVOCATION, is left where it is. Honestly, the schools requirement seems like something that should be swapped with the two.

Spellsword should be something that requires non-generalist, while Shadow Mage definitely should require generalist just so it isn't a kensai/weave master/MoD tier bait trap for new players. Especially since being a generalist is actually the best choice of all.

Spellsword should have to pick a school, instead of generalizing, so that my concept of just going 26/4 spellsword evoker wizard isn't so OP. The path is actually better played for PvP as a full evoker wizard who gets AC.

Then, with greater spell limitations, one could approach empowering the spellswords with less fear.

edit: losing one spell school is already a thing, after further reading. still, shadow mages suck.

DOUBLE EDIT: For some reason, I thought Shadow Mages had to be specialists.
Last edited by susitsu on Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kirito
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Kirito » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:28 am

Astral wrote:.
Secondly, the path's options narrowed to rapier if you're dex and scimitar if you're str (no greatsword/axe or dual katanas wiz/ranger) and that's going to look stupid in game.
Please can you explain this a little, I really don't understand your point. As as far as I can see the same could be said about any melee character.

As a melee character you are forced to choose between AC, twohanded damage and AB boost and dual wielding APR boost? What's the difference with spellsword?

Regarding the synergy between skills, int gives damage, AC and spells. How is that not synergy? The bases into requirement on INT for AC is largely irrelevant as if you dual class you won't need 22 and you will already have 19 for 9th level spells

Kirito
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Kirito » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:33 am

susitsu wrote: Spellsword should be something that requires non-generalist, while Shadow Mage definitely should require generalist just so it isn't a kensai/weave master/MoD tier bait trap for new players. Especially since being a generalist is actually the best choice of all.

Spellsword should have to pick a school, instead of generalizing, so that my concept of just going 26/4 spellsword evoker wizard isn't so OP. The path is actually better played for PvP as a full evoker wizard who gets AC.

Then, with greater spell limitations, one could approach empowering the spellswords with less fear.

edit: losing one spell school is already a thing, after further reading. still, shadow mages suck.
They are specialists, they lose out on a school AND summons in order to learn melee skills.or was that what your edit was Meaning? They just don't get the bonus spells for specialising.

User avatar
susitsu
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 7:09 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by susitsu » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:03 pm

I went and read up on spellsword after my post, and found out:
In addition, Spellswords lose access to:

One spell school of their choice
All summoning spells and abilities (the only exception being the wizard familiar)
All epic spells except Epic Mage Armour

so I edited that on because I realized I derped.

To be clear, Hellball and GRuin are literally flavor spells, and as for the rest of the epic spells? Their use in PvP could we outweighed by pure spell spamming. As is, the spellsword path can be used as an outright buff upon an offensive caster who takes a lot of great intelligence and literally no melee feats whatsoever.

People really do place too much value upon evocation as a whole, but a ""spellsword"" evoker who just casts is going to be superior to a spellsword that builds for melee.

Spellsword doesn't get meaningful enough buffs for melee combat like cleric does, and with the two-hand/off-hand changes, now they can neither duel wield or use a shield with their weapon.

Astral
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Astral » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:10 pm

Kirito wrote:
Astral wrote:.
Secondly, the path's options narrowed to rapier if you're dex and scimitar if you're str (no greatsword/axe or dual katanas wiz/ranger) and that's going to look stupid in game.
Please can you explain this a little, I really don't understand your point. As as far as I can see the same could be said about any melee character.

As a melee character you are forced to choose between AC, twohanded damage and AB boost and dual wielding APR boost? What's the difference with spellsword?

Regarding the synergy between skills, int gives damage, AC and spells. How is that not synergy? The bases into requirement on INT for AC is largely irrelevant as if you dual class you won't need 22 and you will already have 19 for 9th level spells
Basically the ac bonus from int is now irrelevant at all points of the game and thus, no excessive ac to spare if I want a greatsword, now I barely have 45 ac with greatsword. All I'm saying is that the change to the ac bonus from int is equivalent to removing this bonus entirely, which is too big of a nerf imo, that's all.

Edit: I kind of agree with Susitsu that Cleric (the closest comparison there is to a 'spellsword' theme we have) is faaaaaar more superior in every category.
Last edited by Astral on Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Currently playing: Seth Xylo

Nitro
Posts: 2800
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:04 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Nitro » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:12 pm

Spellswords do sort of seem like a worse battlecleric at the moment, with all these restrictions on their casting, one might as well roll up a fighter instead to be better at melee, a pure wizard to be better at casting, or a cleric to be better at both.

User avatar
Tyrantos
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:24 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Tyrantos » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:12 pm

Well. Hm. Perhaps if one would like add it as a possibility for a spellsword to imbue weapons with spells briefly, it would make them more viable?

Kirito
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Kirito » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:29 pm

Astral wrote: Basically the ac bonus from int is now irrelevant at all points of the game and thus, no excessive ac to spare if I want a greatsword, now I barely have 45 ac with greatsword. All I'm saying is that the change to the ac bonus from int is equivalent to removing this bonus entirely, which is too big of a nerf imo, that's all.

Edit: I kind of agree with Susitsu that Cleric (the closest comparison there is to a 'spellsword' theme we have) is faaaaaar more superior in every category.
You've again said what you see as the issue, but not why.

Taking the cleric for example. If it wants to dual wield, or two hand it will also lose all the shield AC... and end up on basically the same as a spellsword?

Similarly, taking a fighter (10 Base, 1 dex, 8 plate, 3 adamantium, 6 tumble, 2 fighter, 1 boots, 3 helm, 4 barkskin) gives 38 AC? unless i've missed something... almost 10 less than the spellsword you suggested...

So what you're saying is that any two hander/dual wield is not viable... because they lose out on AC from a shield?
susitsu wrote: Spellsword doesn't get meaningful enough buffs for melee combat like cleric does, and with the two-hand/off-hand changes, now they can neither duel wield or use a shield with their weapon.
Again, why not? (This isn't being antagonistic, I'm just not the world's best builder - I can't see the difference between a fighter dual wielding and a spellsword dual wielding in terms of what they lose to do so.)
Last edited by Kirito on Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kirito
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Kirito » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:30 pm

Nitro wrote:Spellswords do sort of seem like a worse battlecleric at the moment, with all these restrictions on their casting, one might as well roll up a fighter instead to be better at melee, a pure wizard to be better at casting,or a cleric to be better at both.
This is the aim :) so we're almost there ;)

Astral
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Astral » Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:39 pm

Kirito wrote:Again, why not? (This isn't being antagonistic, I'm just not the world's best builder - I can't see the difference between a fighter dual wielding and a spellsword dual wielding in terms of what they lose to do so.)
After all, clerics may not get EMA, but they still get:
*Divine Favor, Magic Vestment, DIVINE POWAH, Greater Restoration, etc.
*Armor/shield proficiency.
*No ASF (which means, you don't have to murder your build with 4 autostill feats if you want to go STR).
*Access to all epic spells except EMA.
*Higher hit dice
*Will AND fort primary saves
And fighter's hit dice is even higher than cleric and they got mundane caster lvl so they don't care much about dispels. AND they actually have feats to use two weapons and the free wizard feats are used for............. for what, actually? you're also taking away GSF infi spells and epic spell focus (+it's console spells) so I really don't have anything to do with those wizard free feats and I don't have combat feats to do anything.
Currently playing: Seth Xylo

User avatar
Purplemyst
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 11:36 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Purplemyst » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:06 pm

Kirito wrote:
Astral wrote: Basically the ac bonus from int is now irrelevant at all points of the game and thus, no excessive ac to spare if I want a greatsword, now I barely have 45 ac with greatsword. All I'm saying is that the change to the ac bonus from int is equivalent to removing this bonus entirely, which is too big of a nerf imo, that's all.

Edit: I kind of agree with Susitsu that Cleric (the closest comparison there is to a 'spellsword' theme we have) is faaaaaar more superior in every category.
You've again said what you see as the issue, but not why.

Taking the cleric for example. If it wants to dual wield, or two hand it will also lose all the shield AC... and end up on basically the same as a spellsword?

Similarly, taking a fighter (10 Base, 1 dex, 8 plate, 3 adamantium, 6 tumble, 2 fighter, 1 boots, 3 helm, 4 barkskin) gives 38 AC? unless i've missed something... almost 10 less than the spellsword you suggested...

So what you're saying is that any two hander/dual wield is not viable... because they lose out on AC from a shield?
susitsu wrote: Spellsword doesn't get meaningful enough buffs for melee combat like cleric does, and with the two-hand/off-hand changes, now they can neither duel wield or use a shield with their weapon.
Again, why not? (This isn't being antagonistic, I'm just not the world's best builder - I can't see the difference between a fighter dual wielding and a spellsword dual wielding in terms of what they lose to do so.)
I have to agree with Susitsu, clerics are far more useful, they use full plate and they also have that spell that raises their armor ac by 5 and they can also cast in their armor without failures. They also have access to powerful epic spells like greater ruin and summons.

I do however think my characters build will still be viable as they're a dex based but I can see str based spellswords struggling a lot more ac wise. I also thought the bonus was so that spell swords wouldn't haven't to ward then equipped their armor because as you can imagine this wouldn't be very viable in pvp without being prepared.

I would suggest decreasing the int ac bonus by 2 when using a two handed wep / shield instead of taking the full bonus away.

Edit: apologies for any grammar or spelling mistakes!! I wrote it my phone.

Astral
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Astral » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:18 pm

Lets also point out that because of epic-wizard limitation, if you multiclass more than 3 lvls you don't get EMA until lvl 27 and you wont have auto-still 3 (might not have auto-still 2 even, if you take rogue dips) so basically you only have 1 str build for this class that can actually work. only 1. If you go dex based you have more options maybe but still, if you multiclass both fighter and rogue lvls pre-epic you will cripple your APR progression really hard and you'll get uncanny early but EMA really late so again, for a class with low hit dice and abysmal saves, it's not worth it. Clerics get 2 primary saves, undispellable ac spells, access to armor, higher hit dice and no ASF and they are somewhat balanced now (now that evo combo and implosion are nerfed) so the spellsword in comparison is utterly weak atm.
Currently playing: Seth Xylo

yellowcateyes
Project Lead
Project Lead
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:02 am

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by yellowcateyes » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:32 pm

I think it's too early to call the Spellsword a weaker Battlecleric.

First of all, Spellswords might as well have Mundane CL given their bonus to dispel. If you do a dex-based 27/3 bard dip, your CL versus dispels is 30. If you do any of the other builds and take Arcane Defense: Abjuration, your CL versus dispels rivals or is better than that of a traditional caster with a discipline dip.

Spellswords are very hardy against dispels, which is a battlecleric weakness. Also, their AB and AC doesn't go away even if an ESF abjuration caster goes to work on them. EMA can't be breached or dispelled, and their AB boost is a coded level-based bonus.

Second, it's hard to gauge the strength of full arcane spellcasting matched to high AC and decent melee capabilities. Spellswords have options sufficiently different from a Battlecleric that I hesitate to make direct comparisons.

For example, the recent change permits non-summoning Conjuration. This means the Spellsword has access to common area denial spells (Evard's, Grease, etc.) as well as Acid Sheath. Spellswords typically have room for GSF Abjuration in pre-epic. This means they can throw out potent Mord's and G.Dispels of their own. Combine that with empowered spell mantles and access to counter-spelling, and the Spellsword might actually end up quite potent against other caster types.

When all else fails, the Spellsword also has access to max'd hasted IGMS spam.

I think the potential of workhorse arcane spells has been lost in the discussion centered around direct ab/ac comparisons. I'd like to see how Spellswords play out before saying with any certainty that they need a buff.
Dinosaur Space Program is my working partner on Arelith-related projects. If my inbox is full or I take a while to get back to you, feel free to PM them questions or concerns.

Nitro
Posts: 2800
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 7:04 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Nitro » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:50 pm

Thing is though, if you're making a spellsword to throw around IGMS spam, disjunctions and G-dispels, you might as well be rolling a regular wizard because you're not doing any melee fighting. As it is, a battle cleric has access to more valuable buffs, summons, and all epic spells (bar EMA), while the spellsword gets access to stronger offensive magic, but loses out on summons, epic spells and a whole school of magic.

There's no way that they can match up to battleclerics except for when they're trying to do so as a full-caster, which they're also kind of bad at since the cleric can still fart out gruins and hellballs at will alongside dragonknights or a vampire gank squad.

Astral
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Astral » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:55 pm

yellowcateyes wrote:I think it's too early to call the Spellsword a weaker Battlecleric.

First of all, Spellswords might as well have Mundane CL given their bonus to dispel. If you do a dex-based 27/3 bard dip, your CL versus dispels is 30. If you do any of the other builds and take Arcane Defense: Abjuration, your CL versus dispels rivals or is better than that of a traditional caster with a discipline dip.

Spellswords are very hardy against dispels, which is a battlecleric weakness. Also, their AB and AC doesn't go away even if an ESF abjuration caster goes to work on them. EMA can't be breached or dispelled, and their AB boost is a coded level-based bonus.

Second, it's hard to gauge the strength of full arcane spellcasting matched to high AC and decent melee capabilities. Spellswords have options sufficiently different from a Battlecleric that I hesitate to make direct comparisons.

For example, the recent change permits non-summoning Conjuration. This means the Spellsword has access to common area denial spells (Evard's, Grease, etc.) as well as Acid Sheath. Spellswords typically have room for GSF Abjuration in pre-epic. This means they can throw out potent Mord's and G.Dispels of their own. Combine that with empowered spell mantles and access to counter-spelling, and the Spellsword might actually end up quite potent against other caster types.

When all else fails, the Spellsword also has access to max'd hasted IGMS spam.

I think the potential of workhorse arcane spells has been lost in the discussion centered around direct ab/ac comparisons. I'd like to see how Spellswords play out before saying with any certainty that they need a buff.
I'm willing to accept what you're saying for as long as I can, at least, keep things like epic spell focus in the build. I want to see many spellsword builds. One player might opt for WM lvls or cot lvls and OW crit. THe other might spend more feats on saves and the third one might squeeze in 2 epic spell focuses. If it's a path with 1-2 builds its going to look stupid in game.
Last edited by Astral on Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Currently playing: Seth Xylo

yellowcateyes
Project Lead
Project Lead
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:02 am

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by yellowcateyes » Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:56 pm

Nitro wrote:Thing is though, if you're making a spellsword to throw around IGMS spam, disjunctions and G-dispels, you might as well be rolling a regular wizard because you're not doing any melee fighting.
Not really, since you don't have to build for IGMS spam, disjunctions, or Acid Sheath. There are plentiful arcane spells that rely solely on caster level and not casting stat, so building to be melee capable is not incompatible with throwing out these spells.

You can have all the melee feats you need pre-epic and get metamagic and a GSF.
Dinosaur Space Program is my working partner on Arelith-related projects. If my inbox is full or I take a while to get back to you, feel free to PM them questions or concerns.

Astral
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Astral » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:00 pm

yellowcateyes wrote:
Nitro wrote:Thing is though, if you're making a spellsword to throw around IGMS spam, disjunctions and G-dispels, you might as well be rolling a regular wizard because you're not doing any melee fighting.
Not really, since you don't have to build for IGMS spam, disjunctions, or Acid Sheath. There are plentiful arcane spells that rely solely on caster level and not casting stat, so building to be melee capable is not incompatible with throwing out these spells.

You can have all the melee feats you need pre-epic and get metamagic and a GSF.

The GFS infi spell are also in consideration to be removed for this path. Just for clarity.
EDIT: Oh, looks like they've been removed already.
EDIT 2: They weren't. A small bug on my end and it was fixed by reclogging.
Last edited by Astral on Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Currently playing: Seth Xylo

yellowcateyes
Project Lead
Project Lead
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 2:02 am

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by yellowcateyes » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:05 pm

Astral wrote:I'm willing to accept what you're saying for as long as I can, at least, keep things like epic spell focus in the build. I want to see many spellsword builds. One player might opt for WM lvls or cot lvls and OW crit. THe other might spend more feats on saves and the third one might squeeze in 2 epic spell focuses. If it's a path with 1-2 builds its going to look stupid in game.
Is it currently impossible to make a WM Spellsword or a CoT spellsword? It's not a rhetorical question - I haven't actually tried.

The stuff I've posted in the build thread aren't meant to be comprehensive or the pinnacle or optimization. They're just some quick and easy build templates for people to use as ideas. There's probably a fair few alternatives that I either haven't thought of, or just haven't taken the time to build and check viability on.

If you've given Spellsword/WM or CoT a building go and found them wanting, what are the reasons they currently don't work?
The GFS infi spell are also in consideration to be removed for this path. Just for clarity.
This is true, but I would still take GSF Abjuration on a Spellsword for reasons unrelated to the infini-spell. (Edit: NVM, see below)
Last edited by yellowcateyes on Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dinosaur Space Program is my working partner on Arelith-related projects. If my inbox is full or I take a while to get back to you, feel free to PM them questions or concerns.

Kirito
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Kirito » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:11 pm

Astral wrote:
Kirito wrote:Again, why not? (This isn't being antagonistic, I'm just not the world's best builder - I can't see the difference between a fighter dual wielding and a spellsword dual wielding in terms of what they lose to do so.)
After all, clerics may not get EMA, but they still get:
*Divine Favor, Magic Vestment, DIVINE POWAH, Greater Restoration, etc.
*Armor/shield proficiency.
*No ASF (which means, you don't have to murder your build with 4 autostill feats if you want to go STR).
*Access to all epic spells except EMA.
*Higher hit dice
*Will AND fort primary saves
And fighter's hit dice is even higher than cleric and they got mundane caster lvl so they don't care much about dispels. AND they actually have feats to use two weapons and the free wizard feats are used for............. for what, actually?
Okay, so you don't actually see a difference between a cleric/fighter and spellsword in terms of what they lose (shield/Spellsword AC) when going to a two handed weapon or dual wielding - other than the number of feats for dual wielding?

The only things you have stated there are class differences not ones to do with why two-handed is not viable.
you're also taking away GSF infi spells
That has never been said... You may have confused this with the statement that IF these got extended into ESF - they wouldn't get the ESF versions.

User avatar
Iceborn
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:31 am
Location: Dancing on the line between sarcasm and irony

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Iceborn » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:24 pm

Kirito wrote:
susitsu wrote: Spellsword doesn't get meaningful enough buffs for melee combat like cleric does, and with the two-hand/off-hand changes, now they can neither duel wield or use a shield with their weapon.
Again, why not? (This isn't being antagonistic, I'm just not the world's best builder - I can't see the difference between a fighter dual wielding and a spellsword dual wielding in terms of what they lose to do so.)
Well, all these restrictions really limit what they can do - right now, if you want to actually use your spellsword abilities, you are limited to one-handed weapons.
Since you don't have 35 APR or a good sneak dice, you'll probably want to pick a finessable weapon that deals good damage in average, which - if you are medium-sized - is the rapier.

As it was pointed before, dex spellswords get the most out of the class due to the massive investment of dealing with the ASF, and the little gain that they would receive (in fact, they'd lose AC only to gain a marginal amount of damage).

Fighters, let's clarify, have their own abilities. Very, very few characters are the staple level 30 fighter that is the definition of a one-trick pony; most 'fighters' will be combinations of blackguards, paladins, barbarians, PDKs, bards, etc; all with their own assortment of abilities that will raise their defensive and offensive output in some way to compensate for some lacking ability that they may not have (and even when that fails, UMD is there as safety net).
While your generic fighter will not have EMA or a full spellbook, they do have their freedom to choose nearly any weapon, shield or armor - barring bards - and still are effective at what they do, without paying the price that the spellswords do pay.

Perhaps the only strength that spellswords truly have over Clerics is the free feats that they get every 5 levels.

I would suggest these changes:
Start with 15% and add 10% ASF reduction for every 6 Spellsword levels. - Spellswords by the book do something like this, and it makes perfect sense as PRC. In Arelith, this doesn't mean that spellswords have to go STR, but it means that they have the option to take some armors, to remain flexible of build and that flexibility is alluring, it's what makes one even consider taking the class, because the auto-still is a heavy burden to pay for something that at end of counts will be mostly cosmetic.
Start with shield, light and medium armor proficiency. - To enable the options above. By level 6 you'd have 25% ASF reduction, which is just about enough to wear a hide armor and a small shield. At level 24, you'd have 55% ASF reduction, which is enough to either wield a tower shield and no armor, or a full plate and no shield, or medium armor and large shield. And even then, you can are perfectly free to still go the full auto-still build for plate and shield.
Start with simple weapons proficiency (kinda weird they get martial but not simple).
Change 'no offhand' to 'no shield'. - Compare this one to Cleric. The cleric, you can build for zen archery, you can build for divine feats, you can build nearly any way you want, and they have the option to do whatever they want with their offhand. In the case of spellswords, I don't see why this limitation exists. It's not a thematic decision, since there's nothing written anywhere that spellswords can't dual-wield or be archers (which, I'll mention, they would be very crappy archers anyway) or go for a scythe.
Use total int, instead of base. Switch condition to 'dominant'.. - This is another odd choice. Why use -base-? Most spellswords will have between 18 to 22 intelligence because they will, naturally, spend most of their abilities in either STR or Dex so they can hit anything without having to true strike every round. Not to mention, Dodge AC is very finicky.
Remove infi-casting spells. - These spells were added so that wizards and sorcerers wouldn't stand back feeling completely useless. In the case of spellswords, they don't need these since they are supposed to be switching between different forms of casting and sword-flailing.



Again. I love spellswords, and I've been waiting for them to come to Arelith for a long time, in whatever incarnation they would take. While I would love they get the imbue-spell that they get in PnP, I doubt that's feasible to script in Arelith, and I'm content with an interpretation of spell-warriors in a similar but different vein than bards.


EDIT:
Kirito wrote:Okay, so you don't actually see a difference between a cleric/fighter and spellsword in terms of what they lose (shield/Spellsword AC) when going to a two handed weapon or dual wielding - other than the number of feats for dual wielding?

The only things you have stated there are class differences not ones to do with why two-handed is not viable.
The thing is that the only thing that spellswords have over other spellswordy classes, is their healthy AC, which goes away the moment you want to break the mold and actually build something with personality.
Misc Changes, with the Feats and Skills sublinks.
Available races
Spell Changes
Class Mechanics
Command Guide

Take a look before asking your questions!

Astral
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Astral » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:33 pm

Kirito wrote:
Astral wrote:
Kirito wrote:Again, why not? (This isn't being antagonistic, I'm just not the world's best builder - I can't see the difference between a fighter dual wielding and a spellsword dual wielding in terms of what they lose to do so.)
After all, clerics may not get EMA, but they still get:
*Divine Favor, Magic Vestment, DIVINE POWAH, Greater Restoration, etc.
*Armor/shield proficiency.
*No ASF (which means, you don't have to murder your build with 4 autostill feats if you want to go STR).
*Access to all epic spells except EMA.
*Higher hit dice
*Will AND fort primary saves
And fighter's hit dice is even higher than cleric and they got mundane caster lvl so they don't care much about dispels. AND they actually have feats to use two weapons and the free wizard feats are used for............. for what, actually?
Okay, so you don't actually see a difference between a cleric/fighter and spellsword in terms of what they lose (shield/Spellsword AC) when going to a two handed weapon or dual wielding - other than the number of feats for dual wielding?

The only things you have stated there are class differences not ones to do with why two-handed is not viable.
you're also taking away GSF infi spells
That has never been said... You may have confused this with the statement that IF these got extended into ESF - they wouldn't get the ESF versions.
My bad, I was confused about the meaning, thinking GFS infi spells will be removed for the path along with ESF and it's console spells. So you're saying that the consideration is to remove JUST the console spells and move the infi spell from GSF to ESF? I got that right? You might as well just do that and remove the infi spells entirely for this path, as no one is going to waste a round or 1/2 round to cast them in epic lvls. Over all it doesn't seem so bad as I thought in first place. Thanks for the clarification.

As for my comparison to fighters in regards to weaponary options. It's ALL about the feats. A fighter has to spend little to no general feats to get all their combat stuff and a wizard cant use their free feats for combat stuff so you're not gonna use two weapons on a spellsword in reality, even if you theoretically could, after adjusting the entire build for it and giving up plenty of other things that a fighter wouldn't need to give up but if you let them keep some of the int bonus to ac with a shield on, or all of the bonus (using flat int score) when using two-handed weapon it would make it worth giving up the shield for something else like a greatsword or two weapons while the shield would still be the better defensive option.
Currently playing: Seth Xylo

Kirito
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Kirito » Mon Aug 14, 2017 4:55 pm

Iceborn wrote: Well, all these restrictions really limit what they can do - right now, if you want to actually use your spellsword abilities, you are limited to one-handed weapons.
Since you don't have 35 APR or a good sneak dice, you'll probably want to pick a finessable weapon that deals good damage in average, which - if you are medium-sized - is the rapier.
Should that be 25 BAB not 35 APR?

Only 1 spellsword ability (AC) is limited to one-handed weapons. Damage is just limited to Melee abilities. The reason for not ranged is sort of in the name, plus Arcane archer is a thing.
As it was pointed before, dex spellswords get the most out of the class due to the massive investment of dealing with the ASF, and the little gain that they would receive (in fact, they'd lose AC only to gain a marginal amount of damage).
Only 1 feat is needed to deal with ASF. Your spells just go up a level. This isn't something that has to affect buffs either as you can swap into / out of armour. (yes, there are other issues but that's another matter)
While your generic fighter will not have EMA or a full spellbook, they do have their freedom to choose nearly any weapon, shield or armor - barring bards - and still are effective at what they do, without paying the price that the spellswords do pay.
See, other than a slightly reduced BAB and less possible melee feats I'm not sure why their ability to choose any weapon is limited?
Change 'no offhand' to 'no shield'. - Compare this one to Cleric. The cleric, you can build for [...] and they have the option to do whatever they want with their offhand.

What's stopping you from doing what you want with your off hand? You lose AC only, just as the Cleric loses AC only?
Use total int, instead of base. Switch condition to 'dominant'.. - This is another odd choice. Why use -base-? Most spellswords will have between 18 to 22 intelligence because they will, naturally, spend most of their abilities in either STR or Dex so they can hit anything without having to true strike every round. Not to mention, Dodge AC is very finicky.
I agree there's little point/need for it being base INT here now.
Again. I love spellswords, and I've been waiting for them to come to Arelith for a long time, in whatever incarnation they would take. While I would love they get the imbue-spell that they get in PnP, I doubt that's feasible to script in Arelith, and I'm content with an interpretation of spell-warriors in a similar but different vein than bards.
Why do you think a one hit discharge of a spell would be good? Or is it the idea of using spells to empower a weapon that you like?

The thing is that the only thing that spellswords have over other spellswordy classes, is their healthy AC, which goes away the moment you want to break the mold and actually build something with personality.
They lose the equivalent of a shields worth of AC to gain something like additional damage or APR? which is the same for any other class that does that.
Spellswords also get a bonus to damage that other spellswordy classes don't. Take 4 fighter levels and have potentially +13 damage from spellsword and +6 from epic weapon spec and STR bonus (say +13). That's 32 static damage on any melee weapon...

Kirito
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 8:22 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Kirito » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:08 pm

Astral wrote: My bad, I was confused about the meaning, thinking GFS infi spells will be removed for the path along with ESF and it's console spells. So you're saying that the consideration is to remove JUST the console spells and move the infi spell from GSF to ESF? I got that right? You might as well just do that and remove the infi spells entirely for this path, as no one is going to waste a round or 1/2 round to cast them in epic lvls. Over all it doesn't seem so bad as I thought in first place. Thanks for the clarification.
Still not got it ;)

GSF are fine and staying. IF ESF were to gain something in the same vein as the GSF spells currently have, they would not get these. For example, if ESF gained inf. ILGS, spellswords would not get this. But they would still keep GSF.

As for my comparison to fighters in regards to weaponary options. It's ALL about the feats. A fighter has to spend little to no general feats to get all their combat stuff and a wizard cant use their free feats for combat stuff so you're not gonna use two weapons on a spellsword in reality, even if you theoretically could, after adjusting the entire build for it and giving up plenty of other things that a fighter wouldn't need to give up but if you let them keep some of the int bonus to ac with a shield on, or all of the bonus (using flat int score) when using two-handed weapon it would make it worth giving up the shield for something else like a greatsword or two weapons while the shield would still be the better defensive option.
You get 7 general feats, pre epic. That's enough to get the 3 dual wield feats, KD, exp and WF. - Two handed needs even less. 3 mage ones can go to 1 GSF, still spell and that still leaves you with 2 feats to play with. Start cross classing and you get more options.

With just 2 wizard feats you can take 5 levels of anyother class and still be Caster level 30... so when comparing to the clerics 26/4 (caster level) you can get Caster level 26 and still have 9 levels of cross classing. enough for 4 bonus fighter feats and still getting the 4 bonus wizard feats.

Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree that you can't build a spellsword that can use a two-handed weapon.

Astral
Posts: 1229
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:18 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Astral » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:28 pm

It doesn't make sense to me. When comparing to a cleric you get 10 more ab and you don't even need str or dex to reach 50s so it's a bad comparison. You can do whatever you want on a cleric because you have divine power. on a fighter, you get higher hp and saves when you have extra feats to invest in saves and higher hit dice so you can effort the lose of ac if you're going to a crazy dps build with two weapons. So yeah, I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Currently playing: Seth Xylo

User avatar
Opustus
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:07 pm

Re: Latest Spellsword Change

Post by Opustus » Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:38 pm

SUPERKEWLIDEA. Let Spellswords imbue their sword with specific spells (e.g. Ice Dagger for cold, Horizikaul's boom for sonic, Combust for fire), discharging (and using up that charge) a massive jolt of energy on their next successful attack!

To Iceborn, Astral and Kirito: It's good to remember that Wizards have NEVER had any fighting capability before the Spellsword class and they retain the majority of their spellbook and spellcasting relatively intact. The comparison to Cleric should be viewed with perspective to the vastly different spell arsenals: offensive Wizard spells, in my humbledore, outclass the offensive Cleric spells. Clerics are generally built as melee buffy bastards without a whole lot of offensive spells to rely on in combat; I'd imagine the Spellsword to place between a Cleric and a Wizard in terms of fighting prowess, being able to cast more potent offensive spells than a Cleric but giving up melee as the primary tool of combat, instead juggling between both casting and melee as a happy medium.
Characters: all poor babies suffering from neglect

Post Reply