OD&D New toD&D 5thEd - Ftr>Eldritch Knight - questions, help, advice

[Paul Farquhar]

I see what you are getting at - the idea is that either the target is harder to hit, or the EK becomes the target - yet at the table I found how the mechanics unfolded, leaned toward wanting Defense. Before I got my Plate, I didn't have the strongest AC, so being targeted all too quickly depleted my hit points. Or I would throw Shield, but an EK is limited in casts, only 2 or 3 for a big chunk of their career in the average campaign (tier 1 and 2). Fortunately my DM allowed me to switch to Defense fighting after a few sessions made the shortcomings clear. Again, this is at our table with our specific party. Once I had stacked Plate, Shield and Defense, I was being hit rarely enough that Shield become really telling, and I could stay in the fight and continue to hold back foes. I felt like I presented as appealing a target without Protection, as with it.

In our other game, I saw our Fighter having a better time. He had Protection and the DM largely ignored it, meaning that every so often he'd happen to be in the right position to use it, and it counted. "Every so often". What I observed is that always-on +1 AC would mechanically have served him better.


Good idea, but aren't you then protecting by actually blocking access? So Protection can't help you, and Defense would be great! (In that scenario.)


When I DM this does not work, because if a player wants to use their words to shape foe actions, they need to succeed, not fail, in the appropriate social skill. For me, to do the opposite devalues the abilities in question.

I would allow this scenario, but the EK will need to succeed at a Charisma (Deception) ability check, contesting the target's Insight. I would likely give the target advantage in most situations, or +5, to account for their hostility and suspicion.

You are confusing the player's intent with the character's intent. The character intends to persuade the orcs to surrender quietly, not insult their grandmothers.

On the whole, if the party includes multiple squishies Defence beats Protection. One place Protection is useful though is if you are mounted and want to stop your mount being shot out from under you.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I just realised what else was nagging me about this: the baseline for the outcome of a failed skill is that the current situation continues, right? So if a Charisma (Intimidation), or whatever, check is failed, the baseline is that the creature does what it was going to do anyway i.e. the character failed to influence them.

So to get what they want, in your example, the character can choose to do nothing at all... assuming the creature intends to attack them. If the creature does not intend to attack them, failing a Charisma (Intimidation) check doesn't make it attack them. It continues not attacking just as it was intending to. That said, if I felt the creature should respond to the player's RP - and I might - then it would be mistaken of a player to try and trick their DM, or to think I would work in simple polarities.

Intimidation is a special case though, in that it's not a very friendly act. Whether you succeed or fail the Intimidation check, your target will probably like you less afterwards. Sometimes that change in attitude can be enough to make a creature attack when it really wasn't planning to.

 

[clearstream]

Intimidation is a special case though, in that it's not a very friendly act. Whether you succeed or fail the Intimidation check, your target will probably like you less afterwards. Sometimes that change in attitude can be enough to make a creature attack when it really wasn't planning to.

Perhaps similar to when you are 100' up, your next climb check might include ensuring that you don't fall! The DMG suggests a "fail by five" rule, so if a DM thought it appropriate, failing an Intimidation check by >4 could result in the situation going pear-shaped.

As always, we have to make a call based on what we perceive about the circumstances. Does it seem to be in the creature's best interests to attack? Do they have allies they could call, or spells they could cast? Can they pretend to be intimidated, and lead the party into a trap? I think if a player is counting on their DM to make the straight play, they'll enjoy their surprise when "going pear-shaped" does what it says on the tin

 

[gyor]

I would also suggest getting the Ritual Caster: Wizard feat, that you can get all kinds of cool spells as rituals like find familiar, unseen servant, Tenser's disk, Leomund's hut, Phantom Steed, Breath Watering, Contact Outer Plane, Rary's Telepathic Bond,, Alarm, Detect Magic and so on that will just about double the amount of spells you have access to. Plus it makes you more of wizardly spellcaster. It also gives you a lot of reusable utility spells, so you can focus more on combat magic.

Not as essential in my opinion is magic inniate: Wizard, but still nice for an extra spell and a couple of cantrips.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Intimidation wasn't really a choice. Just automatic with the soldier background.

You actually get to choose your two background skills, the listed ones are just suggestions. Same applies to the languages, tools, and equipment packages. They written ones are all just suggestions. This is the official rule in the book.

 

[ElterAgo]

You actually get to choose your two background skills, the listed ones are just suggestions. Same applies to the languages, tools, and equipment packages. They written ones are all just suggestions. This is the official rule in the book.

Aha! I didn't realize that. Ok, it will bear some thinking. I'll find a couple still background appropriate but more useful to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

Note that without the warcaster feat you will have trouble casting a lot of spells including shield RAW.

 

[Mort]

Note that without the warcaster feat you will have trouble casting a lot of spells including shield RAW.

Yeah, it's an annoying issue.

Either take a 2 handed weapon (I'm AFB but I believe even by RAW you can take your hand off for somatic components)

OR, with weapon and shield, you have to drop your weapon anytime you want to cast (a non V only spell) and then waste your next bonus action to summon it back (with weapon bond).

That said, Warcaster is so good for EKs that it's practically a feat tax! And as the OP stated, he's planning on taking it at first opportunity.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Either take a 2 handed weapon (I'm AFB but I believe even by RAW you can take your hand off for somatic components)

Yes, that works.

OR, with weapon and shield, you have to drop your weapon anytime you want to cast (a non V only spell) and then waste your next bonus action to summon it back (with weapon bond).

It's technically your free object interaction to just pick the weapon up off the ground.

So on your turn you can, in order:
1) Use weapon normally
2) Drop weapon (not an action)
3) Use S and/or M component to cast spell
4) Pick up weapon as part of your movement or action
5) Use weapon normally (such as a bonus action attack with War Magic)

I like to just say you can switch your weapon into your shield hand to hold, and then transfer it back into your main hand, instead of steps 2 and 4, but that's technically a house rule. The only advantage it gives you is that you don't drop your weapon down a cliff if you're hanging from a ledge (etc), and you don't look stupid always dropping your weapon and picking it up again in combat.

 

[S'mon]

The whole thing is such a pain and gives such silly results (partly due to the ease of object interaction weapon pickup) that I generally just let casters cast while holding their shields, swords etc - maybe the S component is pointing their sword at the enemy for fire bolt, maybe the S component is raising their shield for shield. Maybe the EK's sword is their focus. Maybe the Cleric's mace is their focus, too.