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

[Zardnaar]

Yeah I think that is why they used "Wizard Cantrip" - to refer to the cantrips you get from the Eldritch Knight feature without using more wording.



Get whatever you want at your table, but the PHB is clear on this and I don't feel I need to repeat it dozens of times.

Read page 97 and 98 it is all there what cantrips you can choose.



Yes exactly. It is spelled out very clearly and in fewer and less redundant wording than you are using.



The PHB does tell you where to get them from - the Wizard spell list.

It is clear what it is intended to mean and I really think these are a bunch of strawman arguments you are throwing up one after another.



Yes exactly it means a Cantrip selected through your Eldritch Knight subclass. You have not chosen it before you select it. After you select it then you have chosen it and at that point it is one of the Cantrips from your Eldritch Knight subclass and a "Wizard cantrip" under the intended

Before you select it you have not selected it. Before I level up I have not leveled up. One I level up then I have leveled up.



Actually it makes perfect sense, your repeated refusal to read the PHB and continued argument is nonsensical.



That is not the intended meaning in the Eldritch Knight subclass WRT to how it is used on page 97 and 98.





No they don't . Niether the description of Magic Initiate, nor the description of High Elf use the term "Wizard Cantrip" at all as far as I know.

Before we go further, please provide a page where the Magic initiate feat says "Wizard Cantrip" or where the High Elf description says "Wizard Cantrip".

IF you won't provide a page number then please admit you were mistaken and it is untrue that "Those all say Wizard Cantrip"



I don't know. Maybe it is in the same place as the part of the book that refers to the Cantrip you get from Magic Initiate as a "Wizard cantrip"!



I never said the term "Eldridge Knight spell" is in the PHB. Page 96-98 describe the Eldritch Knight subclass, including the procedures for them to get spells.




Yes they are Wizard spells, from the Wizard spell list which are defined as Wizard spells and that term "Wizard spells" as used on pages 98 is intended to refer ONLY to those specific spells selected as part of the Eldritch Knight subclass feature and not to any other spells that are on the Wizard list.

This is crystal clear.




Sure I can. I have said it many timesalready. I will type it here again:

Wizard cantrip in context on page 97 and 98 is intended to refer specifically to the spells gained through the Eldritch Knight subclass feature.

See I can say it lots of times .... and not only can I say it, I am right about it too!



At least I am not saying that there is verbiage in the PHB that is not there. It is one thing to disagree over what something means. It is quite another to say specific verbiage is written in the PHB when it is not and then to refuse to even retract the statement.

Not really. What the book says is wizard cantrip and cantrip from wizard spell list.

EK and High Elf. Same thing it's very rules lawyer to claim they're not. Wizard class uses Wizard cantrip.

Magic Initiate uses High Elf wording.

Neither are keywords in the glossary I think it's just the way it's worded.

Wizard cantrip and cantrip from the wizard spell list are the same thing imho. Very rules lawyer to say they're not imho.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Sigh

Yeah, but if I'm an Intelligence caster why would I bother to do that? That was my point. You said it was neccessary because of all these things, but I can also do the same things and NOT have a Charisma caster. So it isn't neccessary, because most people aren't going to be intentionally splitting themselves like that.



Wow, you mean if my example was different it would be different! Good golly gosh, I never considered that it might be different if it was different.

But you also admitted that it doesn't matter in the case I was presenting. Which was my point.



Congrats on making a character who doesn't work like how 90% of people will make their characters. This doesn't prove anything except that you can choose to make things more complicated for yourself if you want to.

But there is no reason to assume that a person with 6 cantrips all from the wizard spell list needs to track which specific ones they gained as an Eldritch knight, because only those two are allowed to be used with War Magic. There isn't even a coherent argument for why that could be broken to allow.

Earlier in the thread, someone said this:

The civility and consideration of others and their opinions in this thread is refreshing.

I feel like the thread has taken a turn-around.

 

[mellored]

Can you talk me through the basic build eg classes/levels. Please

Cha-max

Any race
Entertainer
17 Cha, 16 Dex, 13 Str, 12 Con, 8 Int, 8 Wis.

Warlock 2, true strike, agonizing blast
-Cha to hit,
-cha+cha damage
Devoton Paladin 6, Warcaster, searing/ shining smite with True strike
-Cha + Cha to hit
-Cha opportunity attacks
-Cha to all saves
Celestial warlock 6, +2 Cha (20)
-cha+cha+Cha damage.
--+Cha again on a smite.
Dragon Sorcerer 3, quicken
+Cha to AC
Dance bard 3
-Cha dice to hand out
-advantantage when doing the Cha-Cha (Really, take glamor, just couldn't resist the pun)
Sorcerer 4/Bard 4 to get 2 epic boons (22 Cha).

That would be a functional, well rounded build.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The definition of Wizard Spell and other class spells doesn't seem to be explicitly spelled out in the PHB. My interpetation is; a spell you have learned from the Wizard spell list.

So if a Sorcerer learns Fire Bolt that is a Sorcerer cantrip and not a Wizard cantrip. If he multiclasses to Wizard and picks up Acid Splash it's a Wizard spell and not a Sorcerer spell. Even though each spell is on both lists, for a particular character every spell belongs to one and only one class.

The rules are far from clear so this is not the only possible definition of Wizard Spell, but it's a workable one that doesn't contradict any rule in the phb.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I disagree with this. If they come from two different abilities, there is no reason to assume they can't stack

There is no readon to assume they DO stack unless the rules state they do. “Add your ability score bonus to damage” is a feature. You can get the same feature from different sources. Add twice your ability score to damage would be a completely different feature.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This analogy is conflating quantitative with qualitative.

"Add your ability score bonus" is a qualitative statement. "Your ability score bonus" is a fixed value. If it said "add an amount of damage equal to your ability score bonus" that would be a quantitative statement, and therefore might stack.

"Add your proficiency bonus" works the same way. You can get it from several sources (e.g. getting a skill proficiency twice), but you still only add it once. If you are to add a multiple of your proficiency score bonus the text will read "your Proficiency Bonus is doubled".

 

[clearstream]

The definition of Wizard Spell and other class spells doesn't seem to be explicitly spelled out in the PHB. My interpetation is; a spell you have learned from the Wizard spell list.

So if a Sorcerer learns Fire Bolt that is a Sorcerer cantrip and not a Wizard cantrip. If he multiclasses to Wizard and picks up Acid Splash it's a Wizard spell and not a Sorcerer spell. Even though each spell is on both lists, for a particular character every spell belongs to one and only one class.

The rules are far from clear so this is not the only possible definition of Wizard Spell, but it's a workable one that doesn't contradict any rule in the phb.

Trialling a high-elven EK/War on DnDBeyond, I'm able to take three copies of mind sliver. One is tagged "elven lineage spells" another "fighter" and the third "warlock". (None are tagged "Wizard"!) If I like, I can use different spellcasting abilities for each. Because the spellcasting abilities differ, the saving throws differ: for the sake of this example, the elven copy is 11, the fighter copy is 13, and the warlock copy 14.

This legal mechanical possibility endorses your view because -- in terms of game system -- there must be state attached to each copy. Copies cannot "forget" where they came from because if they did they wouldn't "remember" which saving throw to use.

It's easy to prove that the game system must "remember" where spells came from, because that can lead to mechanical differences, so a spell must have that property i.e., it must have the property "I am a Wizard spell", "I am a Warlock spell" etc.​

​

Seeing as spells can appear on multiple lists that property cannot be inferred from that fact alone.​

​

Seeing as neither a high-elf nor an EK are anywhere made a "Wizard", it cannot be inferred from their class status.​

​

High-elf and EK are however directed to choose their spells "from the Wizard spell list".​

​

Thus, the identifying property C in a system statement like "I am a C spell" must be set according to where it is learned from.​

​

Suppose then I take the invocation Agonizing Blast. I must "Choose one of your known Warlock cantrips" so I choose mind sliver. I will then "add your Charisma modifier to that spell's [my Warlock cantrip mind sliver's] damage rolls."​

​

So can I count in Agonizing Blast and impose that higher saving throw when I cast mind sliver via War Magic... which reads in part "a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips"? The answer must be no, because I must cast my "Wizard" copy of the spell. And casting a Wizard cantrip isn't casting one as a Wizard, it's casting one that has the necessitated property "I am a Wizard spell"... whether or not the caster is a Wizard.​

​

In conclusion, in my #298 I asked "why doesn't "one of your Wizard cantrips" simply mean any cantrip you have that is on the wizard spell list?" Your response even better fits my analysis of what is necessitated in the game system -- a "Wizard" spell must be "a spell you have learned from the Wizard spell list". (Emphasis mine.) The attribute C (Class) in "I am a C spell" is established by the list you gained the spell from.

 

[Tawek21]

There are lots of advantages for taking War Caster, I’m not denying that.

The issue is that the main ‘advantage’ is it’s necessary to use your basic class features. So, even if you don’t care to take it for all its other advantages, you’re still forced to take it.

It's complicated. I think it depends on your situation and on your DM.

For the shield spell:

If you are using a shield and aren't using an arcane focus as your weapon, then you can't cast shield as a reaction. If your weapon is an arcane focus staff, you can.

If you are dual-wielding (and not using an arcane focus staff), I don't think you can cast shield as a reaction. Neither hand is free, and as I understand it, you can't stow a weapon as part of a reaction.

If you are using a two-hander, I would allow you to cast shield as a reaction, as I would rule you could drop one hand from the two-hander for the purposes of casting the reaction spell. A strict DM might rule that you would have to be holding the two-hander one-handed to do this, and then you couldn't use the two-hander in an opportunity attack. Alternatively, the very strict DM might not allow you to cast a spell while holding a two-hander, because they don't regard holding the two-hander one-handed as permitted in the rules.

If you do have war caster, you can cast Shield in all these situations, because war caster covers somantic, and war caster is verbal and somantic.

For other spells:

As for casting spells with your main or bonus actions, you have the option of stowing a weapon and casting the spell with the freed up hand. Unless you are dual wielding, that may create problems if you need the weapon for an opportunity attack immediately after casting the spell. For two-handed weapons, see above.

Even with war caster, if your spell needs a material component and you aren't holding an arcane focus, a strict DM might argue you need a free hand to cast the spell. I think most DMs would think that too strict, after you've paid the price of getting war caster.

 

[clearstream]

Even with war caster, if your spell needs a material component and you aren't holding an arcane focus, a strict DM might argue you need a free hand to cast the spell. I think most DMs would think that too strict, after you've paid the price of getting war casting.

That's a good point. Per RAW you'd need a hand free for the M which you can then wave around for the S. That does seem too strict / needlessly limiting the value of War Caster.

IMO EK should just have an extended list of spellcasting focuses that includes their bonded weapons. That puts them on par with Clerics and Paladins, and to my taste is thematically appropriate. From the PHB

Their spells both complement and extend their combat skills, providing additional protection to shore up their armor and also allowing them to engage many foes at once with explosive magic.​

​

(Emphasis mine.) It's hardly complementing and extending if you cannot cast your additional protection spell (shield) while using your combat skills. (Quarterstaff hardly seems high on the list of "thematically appropriate" weapons for them!)

 

[Tawek21]

(Quarterstaff hardly seems high on the list of "thematically appropriate" weapons for them!)

That some EKs and paladins reluctantly use clubs or quarterstaves for mechanical reasons grates with me too.

Personally, I'd like a feature like shillelagh for other one-handed weapons, which allows you to use weapons such as long swords with your casting stat. Perhaps make it a homebrewed cantrip called summon weapon.
However, I think the level 5 d10 damage for a one handed shillelagh may be overpowerful.

For similar reasons, I'd like a version of the polearm master feat that works with other weapons, and allows bonus action attacks with long swords and other one-handed weapons. Perhaps call it pommel strike.