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

[Ashrym]

I don't need to track whether or not I have any particular score to cast mage hand, light, or guidance. So why would I bother to do so?

By making choices to avoid needing that high ability score for the DC or attack bonus we are acknowledging that separate ability score and class spell list. It just becomes easier with an active choice to ignore the those details based on that spell selection.

With the CHA based EK and warlock multiclass example we know we can take jump as an EK spell and we can get away with ignoring INT for that spell. But we cannot do that with sleep because then we need to use the INT score to calculate the save DC. In making a choice to ignore INT we are still tracking spells by class, and keeping track of which we can take or not take; which is a good way to avoid MAD issues but still tracking nonetheless.

The multiclass rules tell us that we prepare spells for each class separately and therefore track those spells by the class. We can make that easier to manage and it is still happening.

In the EK case I read the text as wizard spell and see that as a spell on the wizard spell list. I interpret the qualifier your wizard spells as specific to the wizard spells the EK has learned through the class because it is used to indicate ownership from the lens of the class in which it is described, but I can see it being interpreted as any wizard spell the character has obtained from the wizard list. In either interpretation the spell is still being tracked.

2cp

 

[clearstream]

In the EK case I read the text as wizard spell and see that as a spell on the wizard spell list. I interpret the qualifier your wizard spells as specific to the wizard spells the EK has learned through the class because it is used to indicate ownership from the lens of the class in which it is described, but I can see it being interpreted as any wizard spell the character has obtained from the wizard list. In either interpretation the spell is still being tracked.

Do you mean that you are more restrictive? For example, would you disallow War Magic from being used with a spell an EK learned off the Wizard spell list via Elven Lineage?

 

[Ashrym]

I think the rules do not allow for it by specifying your. I do not think it hurts anything either way though.

 

[clearstream]

I think the rules do not allow for it by specifying your. I do not think it hurts anything either way though.

Can you say why the "your" I bolded isn't simply a test for ownership by the character? So that the implied game system rules are

your - passes the test, a spell the character possesses it​

​

wizard - passes the test, is a spell learned from the wizard list​

​

cantrip - passes the test, a level 0 spell, which is cast without a spell slot​

​

Can you articulate in similarly simple terms the implied rules you have in mind? It seems to me that the parsing becomes more complex or introduces tests that aren't expressly stated in RAW.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

These two posts seem to agree and making the character sheet in D&D Beyond seems to backup that you have to track all your cantrips from various sources separately.

So, you think that an Eldritch Knight on page 97 learns a "wizard cantrip" which means a cantrip from the wizard spell list, but then after that, wizard cantrip means a Eldritch Knight Cantrip gained from the Eldritch knight subclass.

Do you know why an Eldritch Knight's abilities only work with spells an Eldritch Knight knows? Because nothing in the fighter, wizard or eldritch knight allows you to cast a spell you do not know. Your entire reading seems to rest on the idea that it can't mean wizard spell or wizard cantrip, because if it did, then you could cast spells you don't know. And I have no idea how you conceived of that idea.

Just to filter and condense what people have been talking about so far so I can get it straight in my brain.

1. According to the other first two posts quoted, You have to track all cantrips separately. If you take two instances of Mind Sliver - one from your 8 INT EK (chosen from the wizard spell list) and one from 17 charisma Warlock, each casting of those will have a different 'to hit' bonus. There doesn't seem to be any debate here. Seems pretty clear and I'm pretty sure this is how it always worked.

2. There's lots of reasons to drop INT on a EK but it surely isn't required. One of which is to boost CHA or WIS for mutli-classing, another is to create an interesting Face with high CHA. If you do so, you need to track spell sources.

3. There is still debate as to whether you can only use EK cantrips for EK abilities like War Magic. To go further, there's still debate whether you can use Wizard cantrips/spells for War Magic if they weren't given to you specifically by the EK subclass. If they were, say, given to you by taking a level of wizard or Origin feat, they might not be eligible.

4. There is still a debate on stacking various stat bonuses when multi-classing which isn't specific to EK but effects many builds with EK.

Have I missed anything?

 

[clearstream]

Just to filter and condense what people have been talking about so far so I can get it straight in my brain.

1. According to the other first two posts quoted, You have to track all cantrips separately. If you take two instances of Mind Sliver - one from your 8 INT EK (chosen from the wizard spell list) and one from 17 charisma Warlock, each casting of those will have a different 'to hit' bonus. There doesn't seem to be any debate here. Seems pretty clear and I'm pretty sure this is how it always worked.

2. There's lots of reasons to drop INT on a EK but it surely isn't required. One of which is to boost CHA or WIS for mutli-classing, another is to create an interesting Face with high CHA. If you do so, you need to track spell sources.

3. There is still debate as to whether you can only use EK cantrips for EK abilities like War Magic. To go further, there's still debate whether you can use Wizard cantrips/spells for War Magic if they weren't given to you specifically by the EK subclass. If they were, say, given to you by taking a level of wizard or Origin feat, they might not be eligible.

4. There is still a debate on stacking various stat bonuses when multi-classing which isn't specific to EK but effects many builds with EK.

Have I missed anything?

Good summary.

I would challenge folk arguing for 4. to post text from RAW here that mandates it.

And I would challenge folk arguing for 3. to lay out the implied rules that achieve that game state, as I suspect it requires some elision that hides tests that aren't present in RAW and some sort of increased (maybe recursive) complexity.

 

[Ashrym]

Can you say why the "your" I bolded isn't simply a test for ownership by the character?

I can say that "your" is extraneous language in your tests. Take out the word and all wizard spells applies. Leave in the word and we're reading through the lens of the class structure to apply ownership.

That's a nuance WotC should clear up. ;-)

 

[clearstream]

I can say that "your" is extraneous language in your tests.

I assume you're happy to concede that an EK cannot cast cantrips they do not possess, right? Were it to read

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of a Wizard cantrip that has a casting time of an action.​

​

The wording would be open to interpretation that the EK needn't have learned the cantrip prior to using it with War Magic, just so long as it was a Wizard cantrip.

Take out the word and all wizard spells applies. Leave in the word and we're reading through the lens of the class structure to apply ownership.

That's the nub of my challenge: articulate "reading through the lens of the class structure" as the set of implied rules that produce the game state. I contend that you will reveal elided tests that aren't present in RAW and unnecessitated complexity.

 

[Ashrym]

I assume you're happy to concede that an EK cannot cast cantrips they do not possess, right?

Of course an EK cannot cast cantrips they do not possess, which is why "your" wouldn't refer to ownership by the character. That would make it an unnecessary addition to the wording.

Were it to read

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a casting of a Wizard cantrip that has a casting time of an action.​

​

The wording would be open to interpretation that the EK needn't have learned the cantrip prior to using it with War Magic, just so long as it was a Wizard cantrip.

That wording would allow for any cantrip taken from the wizard list. It's not the wording used, however.

hat's the nub of my challenge: articulate "reading through the lens of the class structure" as the set of implied rules that produce the game state. I contend that you will reveal elided tests that aren't present in RAW and unnecessitated complexity.

I actually do recall reading the use of "you" and "your" was intended this way but I don't recall where I read it so would have to look.

I don't have the time until later so I will have to get back on this.

 

[clearstream]

Of course an EK cannot cast cantrips they do not possess, which is why "your" wouldn't refer to ownership by the character. That would make it an unnecessary addition to the wording.

I'm curious about this reasoning. You seem to be saying that because it is true that an EK must be casting "your cantrips" features should avoid referring to that truth. Is that accurate?

That features cannot permit characters to cast spells they do not otherwise have access to sounds like an important general rule, so were I making your argument I might start by pointing to wording like

Before you can cast a spell, you must have the spell prepared in your mind​

​

to show that said important general rule is in place. That particular text fails to explain cases such as Agonizing Blast that refer to "your" Warlock cantrips even when they are not being cast... so one is forced to look elsewhere.

One quickly notices that a critical barrier to this reasoning is that were class features unable to grant the casting of spells a character would not otherwise be able to cast then Spellcasting itself couldn't do so. Therefore one must concede that characters can possess features that were it not for that feature enable them to cast spells.

In that light, "your" becomes an important word, because it refers to spells that a character has in virtue of other features they possess. So that the feature to hand - War Magic - while it allows the casting of a spell is differentiated from other features that might do so, in that it does not grant any spells to thus cast.

That wording would allow for any cantrip taken from the wizard list. It's not the wording used, however.

Yes! And the wording used contains "your". QED.

I actually do recall reading the use of "you" and "your" was intended this way but I don't recall where I read it so would have to look.

I don't have the time until later so I will have to get back on this.

Rats, but -- notwithstanding that I believe my reasoning above will prove tough to refute -- I look forward to it!