D&D 5E EK vs Battlemaster/Abjurer

[gyor]

Having looked at SCAG, Storm Sorceror/Paladin Oath of Vegence is hard to beat, for fighter/mage types (okay its more fighter/mage/cleric).

twinned Booming Blade on a on a Storm Sorceror, brutal, backed by some martial skill and healing from the Paladin and Oath of Enimity.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

at mindxkiller: yea, war magic seems to become much less useful after we get our 2nd attack right?

Not if you're using greenflame blade. You can make 2 attacks, plus get the cantrip damage. That will top out at an extra 3d8 to your primary target, and 3d8+Int to an adjacent target if you hit the first.

That's quite possibly better than 3 attacks. It depends on what sort of weapon or magic weapons you are using, feats, etc.

 

[MindxKiller]

Not if you're using greenflame blade. You can make 2 attacks, plus get the cantrip damage. That will top out at an extra 3d8 to your primary target, and 3d8+Int to an adjacent target if you hit the first.

That's quite possibly better than 3 attacks. It depends on what sort of weapon or magic weapons you are using, feats, etc.

You would need to compare it to 4 attacks, you're comparing a 17th level casting greenflame blade and a 17th level fighter gets 4 attacks. It's a bit less average damage to use greenflame blade, and it's split between two targets which must be 5ft from one another. Greenflame blade is great at lower levels though, but at the end game you'd want to just bop 'em on the head instead. (All of this is assuming a 20 str and int, dueling fighting style and using a longsword.)

 

[zarzak]

I was considering whether to go with an EK or fighter/ mage. It seems to me that most folks don't like the prospect of multi-classing. In my comparison, I don't see a big draw to the EK. I'm unimpressed with the class abilities compared to the Battle Master, and the speed at which I acquire new spells as the EK is terribly slow. Additionally, if I'm going to play this class as a front line fighter, my goal is to optimize the balance of tanking and dealing damage. In terms of tanking, the arcane spells we want are shield, the anti-elemental damage version of shield (I forget the name), mirror image, blink, and improved invisibility. The thing is, if we're in the front line, we don't really want blink or improved invisibility. Blink is terrible for tanking since in 5E you disappear so you're not soaking attacks for the party but instead telling the enemy "go attack the wizard instead!" In terms of improved invisibility, the 5E concentration mechanic is too harsh, so it's better, if possible, that a fellow teammate in the backfield casts this on you. The same goes for haste. So, in the end, I'm only looking to add 3-4 levels of wizard to what will otherwise probably be a Battlemaster.

So what am I losing?

- the EK'sabilities? Forgettable.

- a few hitpoints? Not much, and I could go abjuration wizard and use Arcane Ward to convert my shield spell castings to hitpoints which would more than make up that difference

- an attack per round by 20th level? Ok, that's a thing, but the three aforementioned spells will allow me to tank far more damage than I could deal with one extra attack each round. The impressive capacity to mitigate damage easily comes out ahead.

Why would you go EK over a Battlemaster/Abjurer? Maybe I could even go 12 levels BM, 4 levels abjurer, and 4 levels in something else! Maybe throw some vengeance paladin in there. I'm thinking 12/4/4 by 20th level. Of course one obvious downside is that my ability scores would probably have to be pretty impressive to go with all three...

So EK as a whole is actually pretty strong ...

A few points:
Concentration - Fighter gets proficiency in concentration save, and you'll have decent CON. That and your high AC + Indomitable will get your through most checks. If you take war caster that advantage on top of it. Your self-buffing spells are very powerful!
Reactions - You'll have lots of things to use your reactions for, which is a good thing; you can use it as the situation dictates. Shield is awesome
Fighter Chasis - The fighter is simple, but strong. All of its abilities are very powerful. The main question is whether spells are better than maneuvers. I'd argue you can be much tankier with spells due to the powerful self-buffs.
Multi-class - EK 6/Abjurer 14 is a classic and powerful build that sacrifices offensive capability for additional defense.

That said, if you want to be 'sticky' you might be thinking more in line of polearm master, which lends itself to a completely different build ...

 

[Weathercock]

You would need to compare it to 4 attacks, you're comparing a 17th level casting greenflame blade and a 17th level fighter gets 4 attacks. It's a bit less average damage to use greenflame blade, and it's split between two targets which must be 5ft from one another. Greenflame blade is great at lower levels though, but at the end game you'd want to just bop 'em on the head instead. (All of this is assuming a 20 str and int, dueling fighting style and using a longsword.)

You get your fourth attack at level 20, not level 17.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is exactly what can happen if you use shield or absorb elements too. Both of those use your reaction which means the monsters can flood past the front line. I am playing a fighter/mage and this is typically what happens as soon as shield goes up

And of course, the exact same thing can happen after you use your reaction on an opportunity attack, too.

5E opportunity attacks just aren't any good at forcibly preventing enemy movement. That's okay, because roleplaying considerations still matter: most monsters won't particularly want to put themselves in a position where they are alone and surrounded by hostiles, so bypassing the front line should mostly only be something that happens when there is either 1.) a lone strong berserker-type high-morale monster like a weretiger or a vampire, or 2.) a group of weaker monsters with a unified command structure and a tactically-minded leader who will order them to charge (e.g. goblins led by a bugbear, although in this case they'd probably actually be better off with missile weapons and sniping from hiding).

If you want to hold a chokepoint, it's much better to physically block the chokepoint (e.g. a 5' chokepoint that you can physically stand in) rather than relying on the threat of opportunity attacks (25' chokepoint with a 10' reach weapon) because opportunity attacks aren't much of a deterrent.

 

[Prism]

And of course, the exact same thing can happen after you use your reaction on an opportunity attack, too.

5E opportunity attacks just aren't any good at forcibly preventing enemy movement. That's okay, because roleplaying considerations still matter: most monsters won't particularly want to put themselves in a position where they are alone and surrounded by hostiles, so bypassing the front line should mostly only be something that happens when there is either 1.) a lone strong berserker-type high-morale monster like a weretiger or a vampire, or 2.) a group of weaker monsters with a unified command structure and a tactically-minded leader who will order them to charge (e.g. goblins led by a bugbear, although in this case they'd probably actually be better off with missile weapons and sniping from hiding).

If you want to hold a chokepoint, it's much better to physically block the chokepoint (e.g. a 5' chokepoint that you can physically stand in) rather than relying on the threat of opportunity attacks (25' chokepoint with a 10' reach weapon) because opportunity attacks aren't much of a deterrent.

It can be tricky to hold the line with just the single opportunity attack like you say. Still, it is something, along with trying your best to get in the line of missile attacks to provide some cover. However another thing you need to do really is to provide a target to the enemies to tempt them into attacking you. Protect yourself too much and the creatures are almost forced to ignore you and swarm the party. If used at the wrong time the shield spell can certainly fall into this category.

I am playing a fighter/mage with the shield spell typically prepared and a few times when I have used shield I have created a real problem for the rest of the party as the monsters simply decided after the first couple of misses to go for easier targets. There are usually plenty of opportunities for monsters to flank the party without being encircled themselves, especially when the back line of the party is likely not a significant melee threat.

Even goblins and the like are as intelligent as an average human, and often more cunning and sneaky in combat. They aren't going to attack the guy wearing plate mail with the glowing shield if they can at all help it....

It has to be said that our DM's play most enemies pretty hard and I rarely get as much use out of spells like shield as you might think. I might use it once or twice a day at most.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you want to hold a chokepoint, it's much better to physically block the chokepoint (e.g. a 5' chokepoint that you can physically stand in) rather than relying on the threat of opportunity attacks (25' chokepoint with a 10' reach weapon) because opportunity attacks aren't much of a deterrent.

For a little modern-D&D perspective: In 3.x, you could, with just the right build, not only hold that 25' choke point pretty well, you could exert outright 'battlefield control' over that whole threatened area, and with a fairly trivial magical assist (Enlarge) double it. A 50' choke point isn't exactly a point anymore, it's an interdicted area bigger than a fireball. In 4e you couldn't step on the controllers toes that way, but you could take OA's on every turn (included every enemy's turn), so no cascading by you after you stop one (or 1+1/dex-mod w/3.x Combat Reflexes), and you, as a fighter, could actually stop them (end their movement) without any build tricks, and thus at least hold a 15' choke 'point.'

Conversely, 5e doesn't give a lot of ways to dislodge a medium creature acting as a wall in a 5' choke point, or even several forming a 'fighter wall' across a wider one.

That's okay, because roleplaying considerations still matter...

With less-defined sub-systems and greater DM Empowerment, one major potential source of 'aggro' in 5e is RPing in a way that gets enemies to attack you. That's between you and the DM to figure out what that'd mean for any given enemy, but it hearkens back to the way I remember combats being run back in the day - DMs would often assume more simple aggressive monsters would attack the largest/strongest/most-threatening-looking enemy on the PC side, or merely the closest - typically the fighter.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

DMs would often assume more simple aggressive monsters would attack the largest/strongest/most-threatening-looking enemy on the PC side,

Many of the opponents I run tend to do exactly the opposite--they attack whoever they think it least likely to best them. The exceptions are going to be aggressive solos or monsters driven by a strong leader. But if there is a group of monsters and nobody directing them who to attack? Most of them have enough preservation instinct to go after the squishies and let someone else take on the bigger more dangerous foes. Let your allies soften them up before you go in and finish them off. Better your ally dies than you.

Even for more intelligent foes, it is often advantageous to drop the opponents you can easily drop in one round each before you spend 5 rounds trading blows with the same opponent. The one guy might hit hardest, but numbers matter and it's often best to reduce numbers first.

or merely the closest - typically the fighter.

This is the most common occurrence. They just go after the closest opponent that they aren't attempting to intentionally avoid.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Many of the opponents I run tend to do exactly the opposite--they attack whoever they think it least likely to best them.

I'm neither surprised nor challenging that. Even back then, we knew we weren't having monsters act in the most realistic way, it was just expedient.