D&D 5E (2024) Not a fan of the new Eldritch Knight

[Zardnaar]

The only thing that matters is "if this spell works with that class feature, does the game break?" Otherwise, there is no reason not to allow it.

There's a few examples where it might be OP. Generally adding damage to say cantrips.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There's a few examples where it might be OP. Generally adding damage to say cantrips.

There are only two cantrips at the moment that you might want to restrict: shillelagh and Eldritch Blast, both of which are clearly not a wizard cantrip by any definition.

What I think happened with regards to the wording is this: if you remember from the UA they were planning on bringing back the arcane/divine/primal spell categories, rather than class lists. When this proved unpopular, the term “arcane spell” was simply auto-replaced with “wizard spell” (and likewise for other classes). If the choice is between careful planning and carelessness, it’s usually safe to assume carelessness. This is interesting, since it would have allowed EB as an arcane spell.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are only two cantrips at the moment that you might want to restrict: shillelagh and Eldritch Blast, both of which are clearly not a wizard cantrip by any definition.

What I think happened with regards to the wording is this: if you remember from the UA they were planning on bringing back the arcane/divine/primal spell categories, rather than class lists. When this proved unpopular, the term “arcane spell” was simply auto-replaced with “wizard spell” (and likewise for other classes). If the choice is between careful planning and carelessness, it’s usually safe to assume carelessness. This is interesting, since it would have allowed EB as an arcane spell.

It's the various cantrip damage things that can stack. +15 damage to true strike, half damage on a miss, multi class abuse. Classic sorlock but Agonizing Blast is any cantrip.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's the various cantrip damage things that can stack. +15 damage to true strike

As I said before, this does not work, it clearly does not stack. replacing a with b and then b with b clearly equals b, not 2b. And in any case, it’s a warlock spell.

, half damage on a miss, multi class abuse. Classic sorlock but Agonizing Blast is any cantrip.

Which in every case is - slightly worse than EB.

 

[Zardnaar]

As I said before, this does not work, it clearly does not stack. replacing a with b and then b with b clearly equals b, not 2b. And in any case, it’s a warlock spell.

Which in every case is - slightly worse than EB.

They work then you quicken it.

True strike, celestial warlock ability and Agonizing Blast

You can also do ek7, V bard 6, Warlock 1 cast true strike twice as part of your attacks add charisma bonus twice, action surge cast true strike twice more.......

Or celestial wl 6, v bard 6, fighter 2.

Might be bladesinger instead of Valor bard.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You can also do ek7, V bard 6, Warlock 1 cast true strike twice as part of your attacks add charisma bonus twice, action surge cast true strike twice more.......

You cannot add your charisma bonus twice. “Add your charisma bonus” is the same thing repeated, like “die your hair blue”. You have blue hair, not double blue hair.

As for the rest - big deal, you are level 14 and the single class wizard is throwing 6th level spells around willy nilly.

 

[clearstream]

So, by your reading, an Aberrant Soul Sorcerer, using innate sorcerery, can't boost their subclass spells, because those spells are not sorcerer spells, and nothing says "these count as sorcerer spells for you" like with the Bard ability.

I do not believe that is the intent.

What's kind of frustrating here (as I recently realized in conversation with @Sorcerers Apprentice who drew my attention to relevent, albeit legacy, text) are failures to carry important clarifications forward into the new texts. For instance, the TCoE text for Psionic Spells includes this

Each of these spells counts as a sorcerer spell for you, but it doesn't count against the number of sorcerer spells you know.​

​

(Emphasis mine.) So as to intent, the available evidence seems to be that Psionic Spells ought to be counted as Sorcerer spells. (Just as evidence for the intent of spellcasting focuses seems to be that they ought to cover somatic components too.) None of this changes the 2024 RAW.

 

[clearstream]

There is absolutely NOTHING in the text to support this. It's pure bollocks. If it says "wizard cantrip" and you don't allow it to apply to a cantrip I learned as a wizard, I'm immediately quit your game, because there is one thing I am sure of is that wizard cantrip means wizard cantrip.

I confess to not having read every line of this debate, but why doesn't "one of your Wizard cantrips" simply mean any cantrip you have that is on the wizard spell list? Or is that what you are asserting?

 

[Tawek21]

Treantmonk is wrong because you don't even need to use a staff at all, you can cast Shilleleagh on a club

True. However, if the shillelagh is a club and you have a shield in the other hand, then you have no hand available to hold a focus.

[I made the mistake of writing a long reply without reading the rest of thread. I now see
Ashrym has already written some excellent posts on this. Kudos to Ashrym! I'm still posting this because I've have a few things to add, and maybe everything in one post may be helpful for someone (and also because I've already written it!)]

Long explanation of why this may in an issue in a handful of tables follows...

The Shillelagh spell needs verbal, somantic and a material (mistletoe) component. It also needs the club or staff you want to cast on.

If you are casting it on a staff, and the staff can act as a focus for shillelagh, that's fine. The focus means you don't need the material component, and you can wave the staff to do the somantic part. (EK's are allowed to use a staff as an arcane focus, and there seems to be a consensus that, if you pay for a slightly more expensive staff designed to be a focus you can use it as a weapon)

This presumes that you are allowed to use an arcane focus for the shillelagh spell you got from magic initiate (if the spell has been converted to be an int spell, is it still a druid spell?). In my opinion, most tables will let you decide.

Some argue you can't use an arcane focus for shillelagh. They say that even if the shillelagh spell from magic initiate is int-based, it is still a druid spell, so it needs a druidic focus. If that's what your DM says, you have two choices. Either dip into druid to get access to druidic focus, or find a way to provide the material component without a focus.

Treantmonk's solution is to have a free hand, and not to carry a shield.

I've suggested elsewhere that, if you strap the shield onto your arm (something that was common in real-life history), you should be able to temporarily hold the staff (or club) in your shield hand while casting the spell. In my opinion, few DM's would disallow that, but a handful might. What you can't do is let go of the staff at any point - as soon as you do, shillelagh falls off it.

Sadly, temporarily doffing your shield isn't viable, as the rules are explicit that that takes an action.

In fairness to Treantmonk, I don't think he has a hard line on this either. It's just, for the builds in his videos, he tends to go for the more restrictive interpretations of the rules.

Is this very nitpicky, as TaramTheWanderer has asked? Yes. Most DMs will probably go with one of the more generous interpretations.

However, I have met a few in online discussions who argue DMs should be hard-line about this. They think that shillelagh+shield is overpowered. Not only are you able to use your casting stat for weapon attacks, but this one-handed weapon will have damage like a two-handed weapon. 1d8 initially (as a staff in two hands), then 1d10, then 1d12 then finally 2d6. When combined with polearm master, that's potentially as good as two handed builds, but with the defensive benefit of a shield. One of them said it would mean shillelagh+shield builds could become the only viable shield build.

==== Short version: ask your DM. If you ask if your int spells from magic initiate can be wizards spells, they'll probably just shrug and say yes.

 

[mellored]

I’ve never known any PC take blind fighting. It’s opportunity cost is significantly higher than “see through magical darkness”.

It's worth it if you bring your own darkness/fog.