D&D 5E Eldritch Strike rules question

[ECMO3]

Yes. I think this idea really even follows the spirit of the feature.

Even when a creature is making repeated saves against your magic, it is still resisting a spell you cast (again, your magic). Eldritch Stike undercut's that resistance, whether a new spell or one already in affect.

Also, this is a "high cost" combination really IMO. You have to be a minimum of 12th level to pull it off (Fighter 10/Paladin 2) as far as Wraithful Smite (or use a feat to gain access to the spell). Action Surge is limited as well. Other spells, such as Hold Person or Slow are higher level spells for an EK (Slow wouldn't even be accessable until 13th level EK).

Sure, it is potentially a powerful combination, but many of those exist in 5E.

I agree, and also this is on a fighter which is kind of underpowered at this level anyway at this level.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes, but it was still cast before my next turn.

Word games! This argument would get a die/snack thrown at ya in disapproval at my table. ;-)

My DM prefers that we come to him with our understanding about how it works .... his position is give me a solution to this vs ask me for a solution to this. His common saying is "It's your characters ability, why are you asking me"

The reason this matters is it determines if I multiclass out of fighter after 8 levels of fighter or 10 levels of fighter.

RAW, you need to cast a spell after hitting to trigger the disad. You can't trigger the disad on a target without casting a new spell ("against a spell you cast" is pretty clearly a new instance of casting)

As a DM, I'd be kind of fine with a player who really wanted to apply it on an existing spell that the target's saving against. It doesn't change the power dynamic too much, and comparing it to other control-y effects at that level doesn't really ping my alarms.

But I'd be wary of a player telling me that this is how it should or is intended to work. Don't play word games! Just tell me what you want!

 

[Xetheral]

I think it doesn't work, and the only reason it looks like it might is because of the unusual conjugation of the verb "cast". To my knowledge, there are no examples in English where a single instance of a verb can simultaneously have multiple tenses, even when the conjugations are identical.

Consider a hypothetical where the ability instead modified the Arcane Tricker's Spell Thief ability, and said:

"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you steal before the end of your next turn."

In this hypothetical it would be obvious from the tense of the verb "steal" that it cannot apply to already-stolen spells. If it was to instead apply to already-stolen spells in addition to spells you steal before the end of your next turn, it would need to use two instances of the word "steal" with different tenses, such as: "...against a spell you have stolen or steal before the end of your next turn."

Applying the same principle to Eldritch Strike means that to also apply to previously cast spells it would need to use two instances of the verb "cast" with different tenses, such as "...against a spell you have cast or cast before the end of your next turn."

 

[ezo]

According to JC:

The important points are "it works against a spell you cast at any point" and "that the save is made before the end of your next turn."

So, its clear the designer's intent is for either a spell already working to force a save or a new spell.

 

[ECMO3]

I think it doesn't work, and the only reason it looks like it might is because of the unusual conjugation of the verb "cast". To my knowledge, there are no examples in English where a single instance of a verb can simultaneously have multiple tenses, even when the conjugations are identical.

But you are assuming it is not past tense here as it pertains to the save (not the attack). When the save happens you have always cast the spell in the past.

 

[ECMO3]

But I'd be wary of a player telling me that this is how it should or is intended to work. Don't play word games! Just tell me what you want!

My DM is hard core RAW. He will want to know how I think it "should" work according to the actual words.

Another example with this DM of how strict he is interprets RAW:

If you are fighting an invisible enemy and you have truesight or blindsight or "See Invisibility" active you still have disadvantage on attack rolls and he still has advantage on attack rolls. Reason why is that is part of the invisible condition and strict RAW it does not matter if you can see him or not if he has this condition.

Invisible:

• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a spe⁠cial sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.

From this DMs point of view the state of being "Invisible" causes these things regardless of whether the enemy can see the invisible guy or not. So in this cast the DM is going to want to know what the words actually say.

 

[ezo]

My DM is hard core RAW. He will want to know how I think it "should" work according to the actual words.

Another example with this DM of how strict he is interprets RAW:

If you are fighting an invisible enemy and you have truesight or blindsight or "See Invisibility" active you still have disadvantage on attack rolls and he still has advantage on attack rolls. Reason why is that is part of the invisible condition and strict RAW it does not matter if you can see him or not if he has this condition.

Invisible:

• An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a spe⁠cial sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
• Attack rolls against the creature have disadvantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have advantage.

From this DMs point of view the state of being "Invisible" causes these things regardless of whether the enemy can see the invisible guy or not. So in this cast the DM is going to want to know what the words actually say.

Then your DM should learn about specific rules overriding general rules IMO.

Generally, invisibility confers those benefits, but something like truesight allows you see invisible creatures and objects, so the "invisible creature" does not have the invisible condition to a creature with truesight, and thus loses those benefits.

From the section on Unseen Attackers and Targets, PHB p. 194-195:

Since the creature can see you with Truesight, they don't have disadvantage on attack rolls against you and you do not gain advantage on attack rolls against it.

Ignoring things like this due to strict RAW readings in isolation lead to (frankly) ridiculous conclusions IME.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Then your DM should learn about specific rules overriding general rules IMO.

Generally, invisibility confers those benefits, but something like truesight allows you see invisible creatures and objects, so the "invisible creature" does not have the invisible condition to a creature with truesight, and thus loses those benefits.

From the section on Unseen Attackers and Targets, PHB p. 194-195:
View attachment 344645
View attachment 344643
Since the creature can see you with Truesight, they don't have disadvantage on attack rolls against you and you do not gain advantage on attack rolls against it.

Ignoring things like this due to strict RAW readings in isolation lead to (frankly) ridiculous conclusions IME.

No.

1. Conditions (whether beneficial or harmful) aren't a thing a creature loses (or counts as not having) because of what another creature has.
2. Unseen Attackers and Targets doesn't apply here because mechanically, the second benefit of the invisible condition doesn't care if you are actually unseen or not. Should it care? A lot of people definitely feel like it should, and there's argument revolving around types of invisibility and means of getting around it that would back them up - just as there are for those in the other camp. Does it care? Absolutely not.

 

[ezo]

No.

Yes.

 

[ECMO3]

Then your DM should learn about specific rules overriding general rules IMO.

Generally, invisibility confers those benefits, but something like truesight allows you see invisible creatures and objects, so the "invisible creature" does not have the invisible condition to a creature with truesight, and thus loses those benefits.

You have it backwars. It is specific overiding general. Invisibility comes with the specific mechanism that causes disadvantage/advantage regardless of being seen or unseen. It overrides the general rule for unseen/seen attackers (or makes it moot).

If it did not override the general rule that bullet would not be in there and only the first one would or it would be worded differently, to reference the unseen/seen section. RAW the second bullet means the advantage/disadvantage applies whether or not the attacker is unseen.

Look at it this way - The wording in the invisible condition is similar to the wording in the restrained condition. Restrained causes advantage/disadvantage whether or not you can see the target. Same with the invisible condition.