D&D 5E The Eldritch Knight...what am I missing?

[Blue]

EKs aren't strong blasters

Lastly, if you wanted to be a pretty 50/50 combination of capable melee DPR along with good blasting and some control/utility, would EK 20 or EK 11/Wiz 9 be better?

So for the closest to a 50/50 mix, it would be EK 11/Wiz 9, for optimized blasting while still having good melee capability?

Reading these is like "Which subclass of monk should I go for in order to be a heavy armored tank with a polearm?" Sure you can build it, but there are other classes if you want that to be your focus.

There is no "good blasting" except Warlock with optimized EB. In general, single target damage is something handled better with weapons than with spells - which you already are good at. There are good area of effect damage for when you are fighting a lot of opponents (though there's better crowd control spells), but that doesn't get to equally as good as your melee when a large chunk of your levels are advancing casting at 1/3 and you're going further MAD to get up your caster ability for save DCs or spell attack rolls.

If you want to "blast" AND be capable in melee, go for bladesinger, some warlocks, or maybe one of the blasting clerics. The EK is a good subclass, but on-level spells aren't what it's built for.

Building on the fighter chassis with buffs and defenses, and filling in gaps with utility, those are things the EK does well - nay, does excellently. Keep a fireball for when 16 gnolls ambush you, sure. But when you want 50/50 equal time for "good blasting" on a framework that is 100% fighter + 33% limited caster, you're starting with the wrong class to have that balance. You can multiclass, but you'll be behind on both fighter and caster, and even further behind in the spell levels known to fill those spell slots.

What I'm trying to say is if you want to celebrate what the EK excels at you can have a strong build. But if you want that much blasting a full caster build that can also melee (though only at the "50% of the time" level) may be a better fit to realize those goals.

 

[krakistophales]

Reading these is like "Which subclass of monk should I go for in order to be a heavy armored tank with a polearm?" Sure you can build it, but there are other classes if you want that to be your focus.

There is no "good blasting" except Warlock with optimized EB. In general, single target damage is something handled better with weapons than with spells - which you already are good at. There are good area of effect damage for when you are fighting a lot of opponents (though there's better crowd control spells), but that doesn't get to equally as good as your melee when a large chunk of your levels are advancing casting at 1/3 and you're going further MAD to get up your caster ability for save DCs or spell attack rolls.

If you want to "blast" AND be capable in melee, go for bladesinger, some warlocks, or maybe one of the blasting clerics. The EK is a good subclass, but on-level spells aren't what it's built for.

Building on the fighter chassis with buffs and defenses, and filling in gaps with utility, those are things the EK does well - nay, does excellently. Keep a fireball for when 16 gnolls ambush you, sure. But when you want 50/50 equal time for "good blasting" on a framework that is 100% fighter + 33% limited caster, you're starting with the wrong class to have that balance. You can multiclass, but you'll be behind on both fighter and caster, and even further behind in the spell levels known to fill those spell slots.

What I'm trying to say is if you want to celebrate what the EK excels at you can have a strong build. But if you want that much blasting a full caster build that can also melee (though only at the "50% of the time" level) may be a better fit to realize those goals.

Bladesinger is a no go because it forces you to be an elf and it's basically a wizard that can do a melee dance a couple times a day. Warlocks are too squishy to be fully melee capable, and what blaster cleric are you referring to? War/Tempest domain?

I understand a 50/50 mix isnt going to blast like a dedicated evoker wizard or sorcerer or warlock, but if he can attain half that capability, i'd be happy.

 

[Saggo]

Warlocks are too squishy to be fully melee capable,

They have the same HD as a cleric, Fiend Patron, Armor of Agathys, and at-will free Mage Armor, and that's just pure Warlock with no multiclass or feats. Warlock is one of the better full caster frontliners.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, EK 18/Mage 2 does not have access to level 4 spells, only to level 4 spell slots. EK gets his first level 4 spell at EK 19, and if you're going to EK 19 you really might as well go to EK 20.

EK 1, 2, 11 and 20 are the only breakpoints I'd seriously consider. And the first two aren't even really EK, they're just plain Fighter.

Thanks for the correction. I meant 4th level spell slots.

And there are really different combinations to consider. Maybe not all are as optimal at level 20 as your breakpoints, but a strong case could be made for EK 7 or 8. Especially when the question was how to combine wizard and fighter so that you are about equally good at fighting and casting, EK 15 can´t be dismissed.

 

[zaratan]

leave at 12 is an option too, if you need an extra feat/ASI.

 

[krakistophales]

seems like EK 11/Wiz 9 is the sweet spot since you have 3 attacks, can cast 5th level spells, and have a 6th level slot for overcasting, on top of arcane recovery and 2 out of 4 evoker school bonuses. Solid.

 

[zaratan]

Still, you need to choose: make 3 attacks, or cast a spell. As a sorcerer you could do both in the same turn. And add your Cha mod to your fireball damage as draconic bloodline (besides I prefer wild magic), and even reroll damage dices if you get empowered spell.

sorry, maybe I'm to noob to see how multiclass as wizard can be better than sorcerer in that case.

 

[krakistophales]

Still, you need to choose: make 3 attacks, or cast a spell. As a sorcerer you could do both in the same turn. And add your Cha mod to your fireball damage as draconic bloodline (besides I prefer wild magic), and even reroll damage dices if you get empowered spell.

sorry, maybe I'm to noob to see how multiclass as wizard can be better than sorcerer in that case.

I would think its because it would make you too MAD for one, and the other is that all the spells you would have up to EK 11 would be wizard spells and therefore require INT and the sorcerer spells learned after that would require CHA no?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Bladesinger is a no go because it forces you to be an elf and it's basically a wizard that can do a melee dance a couple times a day. Warlocks are too squishy to be fully melee capable, and what blaster cleric are you referring to? War/Tempest domain?

I understand a 50/50 mix isnt going to blast like a dedicated evoker wizard or sorcerer or warlock, but if he can attain half that capability, i'd be happy.

Fighter 1/Fiend Bladelock X is very melee-capable and not squishy at all. You've got temp HP on kill and Second Wind every short rest to boot; plus Vampiric Touch when you want extra healing; plus Armor of Agathys. You also have Con saves so an excellent chance of keeping concentration; and you have two attacks per round by 6th level due to Thirsting Blade invocation.

The only things wrong with warlocks are all fixable by a single level of Fighter.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Still, you need to choose: make 3 attacks, or cast a spell. As a sorcerer you could do both in the same turn. And add your Cha mod to your fireball damage as draconic bloodline (besides I prefer wild magic), and even reroll damage dices if you get empowered spell.

sorry, maybe I'm to noob to see how multiclass as wizard can be better than sorcerer in that case.

It's a playstyle thing really. Wizards get better and more flexible spells (can change every short rest). Sorcerers get a better action economy for the few relatively limited spells they can learn. Sorcerers synergize better with a Warlock dip--not just for the Cha dependency, but for the "accumulate arbitrary numbers of spell slots as long as you never take a long rest" silliness (which you will probably never actually use in a real game but is fun to think about). Also, an EK X/Wizard X can swap spells with another wizard in the party, enhancing both PCs with the synergy (by relieving the pressure on "spells known" which otherwise causes unpleasant dilemmas for any wizard), whereas a Sorc has no such synergy.

EK 11/Sorc 9 or EK 11/Sorc 7/Warlock 2 certainly is an interesting idea for someone who wants to double down on EK "blastiness" with a limited spell list, and you'd get enough spells off the wizard list (Absorb Elements being the standout) to cover some of the Sorc's weaknesses. I thank you for mentioning that idea. It has advantages and disadvantages relative to EK/Wizard.

Edit: after thinking about it for a while, my question is, "Why would you play an EK 11/Sorc 9 over a Fighter 1/Warlock 2/Sorcerer 17?" If your plan is to shoot three arrows and then Eldritch Blast, why wouldn't you be okay with just Eldritch Blasting twice AND having way more spells including Wish?

So, my hypothesis is that EK 11/Wizard 9 has a niche because it allows you to have good at-will attack capabilities and still be a wizard (with a flexible spell list, ritual casting, etc.), whereas EK 11/Sorc 9 does not have a niche because it's dominated by Sorlock builds.