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

[Tawek21]

Fair.

It's fairly clear cut even with magic initiate feats.

Fae and Shadow it may be iffy.

In my opinion, nothing is clear.

The team who wrote these books is small and they had an enormously complicated set of rules to define. I suspect RAI is a misconception. There is no Rules As Intended, because they probably never thought about the issue of what cantrips count as wizard cantrips for Eldricht Knights. They were too busy juggling a thousand other issues.

At some point, they may produce an errata or send out a tweet to clarify. But maybe they won't.

Until then, DMs and tables will have to make their own decisions. In my opinion, that's fine. I think they've done a pretty good job with the rules, but there was no way they'd cover every detail with the small team and the limited time they had.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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?

I would be happy with that interpretation. It's the most straightforward - if there is any doubt about where the character acquired the spell, you can simply check on the list to tell if it is a wizard spell or not.

 

[Tawek21]

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

I think it's worth it, if you find it fun

This is particularly true for an two handed EK. With AC boosting options like shield and blade ward, we don't really need an extra point of AC. And, if we discover blindfighting is too niche for it to be fun, we can just swap it out with another fighting style.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

To go further, with the new rules, you can choose which stat to use, regardless of which list you choose from. So, as an EK taking Shillelagh, you can choose CHARISMA to cast it.

So, if you rule that a spell that is no longer Wisdom-based is no longer a druid spell, does it means that if it's not INT-based, it's not an EK spell either?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

double-post

In my opinion, nothing is clear.

The team who wrote these books is small and they had an enormously complicated set of rules to define. I suspect RAI is a misconception. There is no Rules As Intended, because
they probably never thought about the issue of what cantrips count as wizard cantrips for Eldricht Knights. They were too busy juggling a thousand other issues.

At some point, they may produce an errata or send out a tweet to clarify. But maybe they won't.

Until then, DMs and tables will have to make their own decisions. In my opinion, that's fine. I think they've done a pretty good job with the rules, but there was no way they'd cover every detail with the small team and the limited time they had.

Having made a couple characters with the new rules on D&DBeyond, it really feels like a mish-mash hybrid between the new and old. I know it's supposed to be backwards compatible but it really feels cobbled together. That said, I don't own the physical books and haven't read through any of the new books yet. It's just how it feels on the web site.

 

[Tawek21]

double-post

Having made a couple characters with the new rules on D&DBeyond, it really feels like a mish-mash hybrid between the new and old. I know it's supposed to be backwards compatible but it really feels cobbled together. That said, I don't own the physical books and haven't read through any of the new books yet. It's just how it feels on the web site.

I think it being a mish-mash hybrid was inevitable.

Perhaps I'm sympathetic because of my experience when I used to work in the software industry. Whenever something was supposed to be upwards compatible, there were innumerable problems.

What I like is that the underlying direction of the changes seems to be to give players more options when building their characters, and to adjust the rules so there are fewer have-to-take options.

Any change to the rules was bound to mean much loved builds would no longer be allowed. But overall, I like the changes.

 

[Tawek21]

To go further, with the new rules, you can choose which stat to use, regardless of which list you choose from. So, as an EK taking Shillelagh, you can choose CHARISMA to cast it.

So, if you rule that a spell that is no longer Wisdom-based is no longer a druid spell, does it means that if it's not INT-based, it's not an EK spell either?

Good question. And it seems to me they've not really thought this through.

I like the decision that you can choose the casting stat. That seems to me to be designed to simplify things for players who get spells from feats and races, so they can use the same stat as their other spells. If that is the underlying philosophy, then it may be they'll rule that when the player decides the casting stat, they can choose to make it a wizard spell even if it now uses charisma. I don't really see a problem here.

In my opinion, if it gives players more options and doesn't introduce game-breaking combinations, that'd be fine.

My one real concern so far is I think they've made a couple of the cantrips too powerful. And that these might affect game balance somewhat.

- Shillelagh allowing you to choose your casting stat for melee combat is great. But also
increasing a one-handed weapon to a two-handed damage die seems to me overpowered. I kind of think that's the sort of power that should have belonged in a 1st level spell.

- Blade ward can't affect multiple enemies which are attacking other people, as Bane can. But it's better in that it increases your melee AC by an average of 2.5 without using a spell slot, and without any saving throws for any attackers. Again, that seems the kind of power that belongs in a level 1 spell.

- True Strike is also powerful, but as the existing Booming Blade cantrip was similarly powerful, I'm less concerned about it.

 

[Tawek21]

Further up the thread, someone was lamenting the thought that EKs might be forced to get War Caster. In my opinion, this would be no great sacrifice.

The ability to cast a spell at someone when they provoke an opportunity attack could be incredibly useful for an EK that wants to tank (for example, you could take them out of the fight with a Tasha's Hideous Laughter).

Having advantage on Con saving throws (as well as proficiency) means our Blade Ward will almost never be broken (or Blur or whatever).

And if you want to use a shield and won't be an int build with shillelagh staff and shield, then being able to cast spells that need somantic but don't need material components (like the shield spell) is fantastic.

You can also use it to raise your casting stat by 1.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

'
This may be all that matters in terms of how you play at your table, but it is actually irrelevant in discussions of RAW or RAI.

Whether something breaks the game has nothing at all to do with it being RAI or RAW and earlyon this thread many posters thought it could "break the game" in situations.

 

[ECMO3]

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

A 14th level Wizard is throwing ONE 6th level spell a day. That is hardly "willy nilly".