D&D 5E EK vs Battlemaster/Abjurer

[Bayonet]

The best think I think can be done foe EK's is to allow the player to pick the 2 main schools .

I was thinking of this as well. I don't understand why the EK has to be restricted to Evocation and Abjuration spells... is there some sort of game balance issue? I've got an upcoming EK in my home game, and I'll likely house-rule it so that he picks only two schools to cast from. (personally, I think a divination EK would be pretty interesting; look for omens before a battle and try to influence the result.)

 

[miburo99]

A common house-rule is to require one of the Eldritch Knight schools to be either Abjuration or Evocation, and for the other one to be whatever the player wants. Similarly for Illusion/Enchantment for Arcane Tricksters. This maintains some of the existing class flavor while providing expanded player choice.

 

[Huntsman57]

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.

What's your play with booming blade? I suppose we could interpret the inability to move as the inability to attack as well (you move when you swing your sword after all). I don't think that's what's being implied here though. I'm pretty sure what they're saying is that a creature can't take a move action without taking the damage. If the spell description didn't specify melee attacks, then I could certainly see the value of using this cantrip in combination with ranged attacks to keep opponents at arms length from the party but that's not how the spell reads. The way I'm interpreting this spell, the only time this spell deals out more damage to an enemy is if they decide to disengage or otherwise move away from you after you're already engaged with them in melee combat. Certainly handy in retaining the aggro on yourself I guess, but this cantrip isn't blowing me away. What am I missing?

 

[MYV]

What's your play with booming blade? I suppose we could interpret the inability to move as the inability to attack as well (you move when you swing your sword after all). I don't think that's what's being implied here though. I'm pretty sure what they're saying is that a creature can't take a move action without taking the damage. If the spell description didn't specify melee attacks, then I could certainly see the value of using this cantrip in combination with ranged attacks to keep opponents at arms length from the party but that's not how the spell reads. The way I'm interpreting this spell, the only time this spell deals out more damage to an enemy is if they decide to disengage or otherwise move away from you after you're already engaged with them in melee combat. Certainly handy in retaining the aggro on yourself I guess, but this cantrip isn't blowing me away. What am I missing?

yeah, i don't get it either.
storm sorcerers have benefits for casting or dealing dmg with a thunder damage spell of 1st lvl or higher. a cantrip has no mechanical advantege from a storm sorcerer as far as i know.

 

[Prism]

What's your play with booming blade? I suppose we could interpret the inability to move as the inability to attack as well (you move when you swing your sword after all). I don't think that's what's being implied here though. I'm pretty sure what they're saying is that a creature can't take a move action without taking the damage. If the spell description didn't specify melee attacks, then I could certainly see the value of using this cantrip in combination with ranged attacks to keep opponents at arms length from the party but that's not how the spell reads. The way I'm interpreting this spell, the only time this spell deals out more damage to an enemy is if they decide to disengage or otherwise move away from you after you're already engaged with them in melee combat. Certainly handy in retaining the aggro on yourself I guess, but this cantrip isn't blowing me away. What am I missing?

It combines well with the war caster feat when used with an opportunity attack to do more damage and punish further movement. I could see an eldritch knight getting use out of it.

An arcane trickster could use it with their cunning action. Disengage, move, cast booming blade, move away.

Any character with the mobile feat could pull off the same trick.

A wizard or sorcerer could use it, but then they would need to misty step away or something similar.

 

[Kithas]

Personally for gishes my choice is sorc/paladin or ranger(quicken is just too good). But if your question is wizard vs ek. Largely the question is what do you want? Ek will give you more base health but abj wiz will give you plenty of temp hp which is better. Ek gives you better martial abilities, more attacks, war magic more asi's etc. But honestly you don't get a ton of benefit after level 5 in that department, 11 gets you a third attack but thats only 1.5x your current, not 2x like 5 is. Also having a good Con score/good race/feats is so much more a part of having "good" hp than your class. You can get 160(100 from con, 40 from tough, 20 from dwarf)hp from con score race and feats alone. The difference between a 20 fighter and a 20 wiz is 44hp all else equal. That's not much.

Take a look at a 5 fighter 15 wizard, you still get 2 attacks and a fighting style, plus some good manuevers(get the feat too and youll have as much as a 10th level bm). But you also get to chuck 8th level spells, sometimes 2 in one turn(action surge). If you prioritize a good con score and some good armor/tough feat, you will be incredibly hard to drop too. But here's the main difference; if they ignore you and go for the more 'squishy' targets, you just blast the hell out of them with magic. So basically they engage you or you roast them.


P.s. the Blur spell is stupid good for defense and shouldn't be left out

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Ek gives you better martial abilities, more attacks, war magic more asi's etc. But honestly you don't get a ton of benefit after level 5 in that department,

Level 7 is where you get War Magic, which is solid gold with greenflame blade. Unless you have a powerful weapon and routinely face tough solo opponents, you're quite likely going to get more usage out of that than out of two attacks.

 

[Huntsman57]

Personally for gishes my choice is sorc/paladin or ranger(quicken is just too good). But if your question is

P.s. the Blur spell is stupid good for defense and shouldn't be left out

I simply don't like to cast concentration spells like Blur on myself while I'm on the front line. Yes, I get that we have proficiency and can reroll at higher levels but concentration checks seem really easy to fail on average and in 5E, getting hit feels more probable than other editions to me. I feel as though in the war between attack bonus and AC, 5E goes to the attack bonus. Perhaps the devs just felt that hitting is more fun than missing. I dunno.

I rather wish there was some way to mathematically parse out the probability of losing a concentration spell as a front line fighter/mage but I figure there are just too many variables that are specific to the DM and adventure being played.

I like Mirror Image far more as 2nd level spells go since there is no concentration. The downside is that I'm not sure it levels well since the images will likely have a much lower AC than the player at higher levels and the party starts facing more powerful opponents. So, there will be spots where the attack goes after an image and needs something like a 2 or better to hit. The attack hits and dispels an image but the roll wasn't actually high enough to hit the player if he was the target. Therefore the spell did nothing other than lose an image. The player wouldn't have been hit either way. Again, I'd love to see some math on how this scales is such a thing can even be calculated.

 

[Kithas]

In most cases your con save is going to be a dc10. You can't crit-fail on saves and you are proficient. So on an average save you already have a 55% chance to succeed. With a +3 con at level one that goes up to 80% success rate, and so on. War caster gives you advantage which basically doubles your chances(the math is different but it's close). At my table we have a war cleric who is always concentrating on something or other, he does have war caster, and a +3 con to my knowledge, even without the save proficiency I can not recall a time where his concentration was broken. Except when he went down to 0 hp.

On greenflame blade and war magic;
It is probably better than two attacks yes, but it also costs your bonus action. Honestly I'd rather just forego a weapon and use shocking grasp as that scales better in the long run and it lets you use your hand for an arcane focus.