Nope. "Two-Handed (p. 147). This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it."
EDIT: ninja'd by the ninja.
D&D 5E Does the Eldritch Knight suck?
- Thread starter krakistophales
- Start date
EDIT: ninja'd by the ninja.
zaratan
First Post
EK 11 or 12/ sorcerer rest.
can make 3 attacks (or 4 with haste) and cast a spell with the bonus action that the target/s will have desadvantage to save. You can burn legendary resistance better than pure casters and do a massive damage in the same turn.
But, yeah, EK is lackluster in low levels.
can make 3 attacks (or 4 with haste) and cast a spell with the bonus action that the target/s will have desadvantage to save. You can burn legendary resistance better than pure casters and do a massive damage in the same turn.
But, yeah, EK is lackluster in low levels.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
[MENTION=6775149]krakistophales[/MENTION] ; Er, looking at the other threads you started, I think what you are saying in all of them boils down to this:
Looking at Class A, it sucks mechanically and numbers wise at the Combat one-third of the 5e D&D game. Therefore it sucks at ALL of the game and is totally baffling to me why anyone would play one.
Kind of like multiplying anything by 0. "Looking at Class A, multiply by 0, and for some reason the answer keeps coming up 0 for me. In other words, it sucks". You seem to be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY missing the other two thirds of the game (or, any number other than 0) not to mention the whole idea of an "interesting character with a personality, desires, and role-playing side of things".
Maybe if you rephrased your questions to be more specifically oriented towards ONLY combat and how a class relates to another on purely mechanical/numbers/combat classes would help avoid any..."disheartening replies" from some people. Because otherwise you will continue to be dazed and confused as to why someone would want to play a one-armed halfling Champion with a 12 Strength and 12 Dex who was left for dead at the bottom of a charnel pit outside the Evil City of Bleakness (re: because he/she would be a fun and interesting character to play...in case you were confused again).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
[MENTION=6775149]krakistophales[/MENTION] ; Er, looking at the other threads you started, I think what you are saying in all of them boils down to this:
Looking at Class A, it sucks mechanically and numbers wise at the Combat one-third of the 5e D&D game. Therefore it sucks at ALL of the game and is totally baffling to me why anyone would play one.
Kind of like multiplying anything by 0. "Looking at Class A, multiply by 0, and for some reason the answer keeps coming up 0 for me. In other words, it sucks". You seem to be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY missing the other two thirds of the game (or, any number other than 0) not to mention the whole idea of an "interesting character with a personality, desires, and role-playing side of things".
Maybe if you rephrased your questions to be more specifically oriented towards ONLY combat and how a class relates to another on purely mechanical/numbers/combat classes would help avoid any..."disheartening replies" from some people. Because otherwise you will continue to be dazed and confused as to why someone would want to play a one-armed halfling Champion with a 12 Strength and 12 Dex who was left for dead at the bottom of a charnel pit outside the Evil City of Bleakness (re: because he/she would be a fun and interesting character to play...in case you were confused again).
^_^
Paul L. Ming
krakistophales
First Post
I love how posts like this, who basically infer that I'm an idiot that couldn't possibly fathom the concept that people will play mechanically non-optimized characters because they want to create a unique background or interesting story or whatever, are completely acceptable in terms of moderation, but if I rightly say that someone's "butthurt" over something, that's a red flag.
Anyway, I'm not baffled by anything. I'm asking if the EK sucks, and if you agree/disagree, state why. I'm not SAYING it sucks, and I'm certainly not saying it sucks at the other 2/3rds of the game, I'm simply asking for people's experiences with it and why they think what they do about it. In case you were confused.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
Ok. So you aren't an idiot. Got it. If you understand the idea that other people will play mechanically non-optimized characters because they want to...why are you asking this question? Isn't it completely pointless? I mean, I don't really like optimized characters, personally (too boringly one-sided). I'd rather have players make interesting characters they want to play based on what they think would be fun, interesting and good for the group. Do you not want the opinion's of people like me who basically only give 1/3 of our attention to the combat side of the game? If so, you are likely to get a "no, they don't suck at all" answer.
As I said...be more specific. Using a word like "sucks" is far to vague and open to interpretation on a myriad of levels. That's like saying "Vegetables suck". What vegies? All? Only green ones? Only ones that grow on a vine? Only ones that grow in the ground? What does 'suck' mean? Only ones that are too sweet? Too bitter? Take more than 5 minutes to cook?
Simply saying "Do people think Eldritch Knights suck" is to broad. There is nothing to help any of the posters here understand what "sucks" means to you.
Here's my answer, I hope it's useful to you: "No, they don't suck. They are interesting mixes of fighting and some magic. There is an order of EK's in my last campaign world who patrol the edges of a dark and forbidden swamp rumored to be infested with Cthonic demigods and their foul worshippers and spawn. All the townsfolk that live near by the swamp give great thanks and honor to those who are deemed worthy to be a member of the Knights of the Dark Swamp, for they protect them from all the unseen horrors found therein". Are there 'tougher' (combat-mechanic choice wise) classes that could be 'better suited' to combat (as in actual combat) these things? Yup...but that doesn't matter. Those classes don't make up the Knights of the Dark Swamp, and don't have the prestige and perceived skill/capabilities that the Knights do. So why would a player want to play one? Because they are cool and everyone likes them and treats them as heroes from the get-go.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Ok. So you aren't an idiot. Got it. If you understand the idea that other people will play mechanically non-optimized characters because they want to...why are you asking this question? Isn't it completely pointless? I mean, I don't really like optimized characters, personally (too boringly one-sided). I'd rather have players make interesting characters they want to play based on what they think would be fun, interesting and good for the group. Do you not want the opinion's of people like me who basically only give 1/3 of our attention to the combat side of the game? If so, you are likely to get a "no, they don't suck at all" answer.
krakistophales said:
As I said...be more specific. Using a word like "sucks" is far to vague and open to interpretation on a myriad of levels. That's like saying "Vegetables suck". What vegies? All? Only green ones? Only ones that grow on a vine? Only ones that grow in the ground? What does 'suck' mean? Only ones that are too sweet? Too bitter? Take more than 5 minutes to cook?
Simply saying "Do people think Eldritch Knights suck" is to broad. There is nothing to help any of the posters here understand what "sucks" means to you.
Here's my answer, I hope it's useful to you: "No, they don't suck. They are interesting mixes of fighting and some magic. There is an order of EK's in my last campaign world who patrol the edges of a dark and forbidden swamp rumored to be infested with Cthonic demigods and their foul worshippers and spawn. All the townsfolk that live near by the swamp give great thanks and honor to those who are deemed worthy to be a member of the Knights of the Dark Swamp, for they protect them from all the unseen horrors found therein". Are there 'tougher' (combat-mechanic choice wise) classes that could be 'better suited' to combat (as in actual combat) these things? Yup...but that doesn't matter. Those classes don't make up the Knights of the Dark Swamp, and don't have the prestige and perceived skill/capabilities that the Knights do. So why would a player want to play one? Because they are cool and everyone likes them and treats them as heroes from the get-go.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Zardnaar
Legend
Non of the fighters suck as such some are just better than others. None of them are in the realm of the beastmaster ranger for example. I think the EK is a high skill level required class that is better at higher levels than the other fighters. Like that bit about using a two handed weapon with one that bid posted about.
krakistophales
First Post
This isn't a philosophical discussion. Somehow, plenty of people in this forum have found ways to "intuitively discern" for themselves what "suck" means to them and simply answered the question, rather than trying to be pseudo-intellectual about it and answering questions with questions and getting into the "what is reality?" debate.
Gish is a fighter magic user, and while it's exact definition varies from edition to edition, in this edition it generally means cast arcane spells and gets at least two attacks per attack action. It's from the AD&D days when people would play Githyanki fighter/mages, gith got turned into gish.
As for whether or not eldritch knight sucks, well that depends. It's a perfectly functional class, but their abilities are somewhat at odds to how they are usually built. For instance they can grant disadvantage on saves, but don't have much in the way of save or suck, nor would they given they are usually built with a low spell casting stat. With that said they are built on the rock solid base that is the fighter, so it's pretty hard to screw it up. Are their better choices if you want to build a Gish, certainly, but it's a pretty low effort build.
As soon as we add multi classing things get different, There are two logical breaks for multi classing lvl 7 (two attacks and war magic) and 11 (three attacks and Eldritch strike).
7th is the best break point level because of war magic. Green flame blade includes a weapon attack and when you add another attack from war magic you are getting into some seriously respectable at will damage. That also gets you an extra ASI which will offset the one you loose from multiclassing at a non divisible by 4 level. You also get action surge (one of the best nova abilities in the game), a fighting style, and fighter proficiency. You then add wizard to this, and your EK levels give you two additional levels of spell slots. You'll finish at 20 with a seventh level spells, and an eight level slot. At this point blade signer doesn't get you much since you'll be rocking heavy armor and a dex dump stat, so I'd suggest picking abjuration as your wizard college because you'll be in melee and be using quite a few abjuration spells, which means a lot of temporary HP.
11th is the other break point, but the three attacks is kind of wasted, since you'll get similar results from green flame blade. The real gem is eldritch strike, but you won't have many wizard levels to get those save or suck spells to take advantage of the disadvantage.
How does EK 7/wizard 13 stack up to the other gishes, fairly well. Unlike the blade singer you have a reason to be in melee, and unlike EK your spell casting is actually decent.
As for whether or not eldritch knight sucks, well that depends. It's a perfectly functional class, but their abilities are somewhat at odds to how they are usually built. For instance they can grant disadvantage on saves, but don't have much in the way of save or suck, nor would they given they are usually built with a low spell casting stat. With that said they are built on the rock solid base that is the fighter, so it's pretty hard to screw it up. Are their better choices if you want to build a Gish, certainly, but it's a pretty low effort build.
As soon as we add multi classing things get different, There are two logical breaks for multi classing lvl 7 (two attacks and war magic) and 11 (three attacks and Eldritch strike).
7th is the best break point level because of war magic. Green flame blade includes a weapon attack and when you add another attack from war magic you are getting into some seriously respectable at will damage. That also gets you an extra ASI which will offset the one you loose from multiclassing at a non divisible by 4 level. You also get action surge (one of the best nova abilities in the game), a fighting style, and fighter proficiency. You then add wizard to this, and your EK levels give you two additional levels of spell slots. You'll finish at 20 with a seventh level spells, and an eight level slot. At this point blade signer doesn't get you much since you'll be rocking heavy armor and a dex dump stat, so I'd suggest picking abjuration as your wizard college because you'll be in melee and be using quite a few abjuration spells, which means a lot of temporary HP.
11th is the other break point, but the three attacks is kind of wasted, since you'll get similar results from green flame blade. The real gem is eldritch strike, but you won't have many wizard levels to get those save or suck spells to take advantage of the disadvantage.
How does EK 7/wizard 13 stack up to the other gishes, fairly well. Unlike the blade singer you have a reason to be in melee, and unlike EK your spell casting is actually decent.
Last edited:
pming
Legend
Hiya!
No, it isn't philosophical...but it is, as I said, far to vague a question it may as well be. As I also said in the last part of my last post, "No...doesn't suck...[my reasons]...". I did "guess" at what 'sucks' means to you...but, as we can clearly see, your "sucks" is quite a bit different from my "sucks". Your "sucks" seems to be oriented towards what class abilities, bonuses and spells an EK can bring into combat as compared to, say a F/MU, Paladin, or some particular flavour of Cleric. I think that version of 'sucks' isn't nearly as important as all the other stuff...like, is it fun to play, does it give a good vibe for the group's campaign setting, and how varied can a EK's personality/background/etc be.
Because of what your version of 'sucks' seems to be implying (based on this and other threads of yours), I suggested (perhaps a bit harshly, sorry about that), that you perhaps rephrase future topics with a more narrowly defined definition (e.g., "With regards to combat DPS and combat variety, how does an Eldritch Knight compare to other fighting/magic-using classes?").
^_^
Paul L. Ming
No, it isn't philosophical...but it is, as I said, far to vague a question it may as well be. As I also said in the last part of my last post, "No...doesn't suck...[my reasons]...". I did "guess" at what 'sucks' means to you...but, as we can clearly see, your "sucks" is quite a bit different from my "sucks". Your "sucks" seems to be oriented towards what class abilities, bonuses and spells an EK can bring into combat as compared to, say a F/MU, Paladin, or some particular flavour of Cleric. I think that version of 'sucks' isn't nearly as important as all the other stuff...like, is it fun to play, does it give a good vibe for the group's campaign setting, and how varied can a EK's personality/background/etc be.
Because of what your version of 'sucks' seems to be implying (based on this and other threads of yours), I suggested (perhaps a bit harshly, sorry about that), that you perhaps rephrase future topics with a more narrowly defined definition (e.g., "With regards to combat DPS and combat variety, how does an Eldritch Knight compare to other fighting/magic-using classes?").
^_^
Paul L. Ming
