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

[ECMO3]

Sure, if you decide to build a Wizard Cleric, you track your spells separately.

On an earlier post you claimed that was "fiddly" and uneccesary.

Glad you finally admited it!

 

[ECMO3]

Strawman. I never said they don't exist. Just that they are incredibly rare because they tend to be badly made characters.

Apparantly not as rare as the "90%" of PC that don't do it this way since you have yet to provide ONE example of a PC currently being played.

Your made up Cleric-Wizard-Eldritch Knight hypothetical example was the "strawman", not my actual real PC.

And we are discussing the 2024 rules where that is no longer the case.

But your claim is 90% players don't play this way. Well the 2024 rules have only even been around for 3 months.

So let me ask you this: You refuse to post an example 2024 character, but how many have you actually seen played at all by anoyone that conform to your allegation?

Have you even seen a singe ONE? I am not just talking at a table you are on, what about a you tube game, or a televised game?

You claim 90% are played a certain way, how many times have you witnessed this? If you are not using 2014 examples to butress that, then I think you probably have not seen a single one played this way.

TBH I think the ONE example I provided exceeds ALL of the 2024 multiclassed casters you have seen played COMBINED.

Do you want me to make random characters?

No I want you to provide examples of real PCs being played.

I personally don't play multiclass characters and none of my DnD groups currently have any multiclass characters.

Ok then admit you were making crap up when you said "90% are ...."

I want you to admit that you have no experience with this, and no basis to actually make a judgement, especially with the 2024 rules, and that you defer to my extensive experience in this regard.

That is what I would like you to say if you have never really seen this in play at your table, because it would be the truth.

Your insistence that I somehow come up with a real character that does something no real character I'm currently aware of does is bizarre.

No, I just think it is obvious you don't know what you are talking about and making things up and the inability to provide a single example of a PC being played to buttress your claim certainly supports this hypothesis .... as does your own statement that neither you or the tables you play on use multiclassed PCs.

You aren't even addressing the point, just saying "My character was real with a character sheet and you just gave a sketched example therefore I am right and you are wrong!"

My point is the type of character I am talking about is actually played and if you don;t know how people build multiclassed caster PCs then you don't know how PCs build multiclass caster PCs, but that is fundamentally different than claiming "90%" are built this way when in fact you don't know of a single one that is built that way.

Most people I know who play paladin play... Paladin. No fighter levels. No eldritch knight subclass. Once I say a paladin take a few levels of hexblade. Most people I know who play wizard... play wizard.

Ok then just admit you have no idea how most players play multiclass characters, you were just making things up earlier and kindly bow out of this discussion.

I've played multiple clerics. I have never once taken a level of sorcerer. Because I'm playing a cleric. And if I desperately wanted consitution save proficiency (which I have never once wanted) then I would use a feat to get it, not take a spellcasting class that offers me nothing I want and that I can't leverage effectively.

Ironically you and I personally agree on Constitution proficiency, but that is a minority opinion and the majority of players who play multiclassed casters do want Constitution proficiency, and I have seen enough multiclasses by other players, to include many in 2024, to be confident in that even though I disagree with it from a personal play style on my PCs.

You have these complex builds in your mind that are "optimal" but what you are doing is not what most people do or play.

I do have some complex builds. I never said they were optimal. The character I linked above is complex, but is certainly NOT optimal.

Also they are not just in my mind, they are actually played. When I post about a specific build here it is almost always a build I played or am currently playing. In some cases it is one someone else has played that I witnessed. I think this is the main difference on where I am coming from and where you are coming from. These things are not just builds in my mind.

Regardless though we were talking specifically about multiclassed "complex" caster builds regarding your 90% statistic. Further, this entire thread, which was started by me, is about "complex" multiclassed Eldritch Knight builds. That is the basis for the thread. If your position is based entirely on single classed builds, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

Finally, I don't think you have enough experience with the 2024 rules to say what most people do or play in general. I am not convinced I know either, but I am convinced based on experience, that your "90%" claim about multiclassed characters is completely bogus.

 

[clearstream]

This argument would be similar to saying that the rules state you can drink a potion as a bonus action, but that since they don't specify it needs to be a potion you own, you could drink any potion from the DMG without having to find it first.

There is no reason to ever consider someone can cast a spell they do not know, and I don't think that ever has to be clarified in the text.

That doesn't correctly follow my argument (see my #380). In a nutshell I'm saying that the reason some features that let you cast spells specify "your" and others do not, is that some features grant you spells (Spellcasting is an example) and others apply to spells granted to you by other features (Agonizing Blast and War Magic are both examples.)

The word "your" is used consistently in the latter type of feature, to say - this will let you do something regarding spells you have in virtue of some other feature but it won't grant you any spells. It's reasonable text to include.

Whether or not the rules ought to specify that you must own a potion in order to drink it, they do specify that

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

​

One reason the designers may have been motivated to expressly state that is that where using objects if close to ordinary experience, casting spells is not. But whatever their motivation, they included text specifying that when it comes to spells, you have to know them before you can use them. The text goes on to read

"Your features specify which spells you have access to, if any..."​

​

Reinforcing the point that characters expressly gain spells by virtue of some features, while other features let them use those spells in different ways but do not grant them. To say "your Wizard spells" places War Magic in the second category, and further narrows it to only spells gained from the Wizard list just in case a character has access to multiple lists.

In summary, my #378 showed what the text would look like without "your". It would look like (or at least be ambiguous and potentially mistaken for) a feature that granted the ability to cast wizard cantrips rather than one that did something with the ability to cast wizard cantrips granted by some other feature. Even were an EK to somehow lack Spellcasting, War Magic would continue to function so long as they had some other "Wizard cantrips" such as from an Elven Lineage.

 

[clearstream]

Wizards use the same wording as EK. So RAW their spells work with war magic.

I agree with you. Another interesting consequence is that an EK/Wiz could even have some spells they know but cannot for the moment cast with War Magic. That is because of the general rule that

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

And wizards are able to know (have in their spell books) more spells than they have prepared. War Magic neither conflicts with nor overwrites the general rule.

Elf cantrip and Magic Initiate depends how rules lawyer you are. Personally I say yes but I wouldn't argue with a DM over it.

The RAW yields a consistent game system based on "your Wizard spells" being spells you gained from the Wizard list, but folk will invevitably continue to RAI in all kinds of ways.

One motivation that folk might have is that they're concerned to be able to use War Magic with cantrips EK might find a way to access from other spell lists. For me the problem is that then requires torturous reasoning about why "your Wizard cantrips" doesn't limit it to... wizard cantrips. Possibly including theories that "Wizard" is code for "Eldritch Knight"... notwithstanding that if that was intended surely "your Eldritch Knight cantrips" or even just "your cantrips" would have been better motivated.

And up thread (my #357) I gave the mechanical basis for excluding spells appearing on the wizard spell list but gained from a different list such as sorcerer or warlock.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I am talking about RAI as noted many pages ago

You are assuming a lot more care went into the wording than is actually the case. The PHB was dashed off in a rush to meet the 50 year deadline, with revisions made on the fly. The wording is riddled with inconsistencies. They don’t even know if flaming sphere is conjuration or evocation!

And why would they intend that? What’s the benefit of such a complicated rule? The people writing the game are not rules lawyers - there is even a paragraph attacking rules-lawyering in the DMG.

 

[clearstream]

Which is why I think it doesn't make sense to read the War Magic and Improved War Magic as only working with the few spells you get from the subclass itself. It makes far more sense to read it as broadly as possible, which is it works with all spells and cantrips from the wizard spell list. Because that's the least complicated way to run it.

Maybe our views are nearer than they seem. With the adjustment to "works with all spells and cantrips learned from the wizard spell list" I would agree with the sense of this. That removes the ambiguity of what is meant by "from" -- it cannot mean merely "on" for the mechanical reasons I gave up thread.

The exact tracking is managed by some VTTs, but at the table I expect groups will often just look at what list the spell is on, and much of the time - as you say - that will work out.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree with you. Another interesting consequence is that an EK/Wiz could even have some spells they know but cannot for the moment cast with War Magic. That is because of the general rule that

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

And wizards are able to know (have in their spell books) more spells than they have prepared. War Magic neither conflicts with nor overwrites the general rule.


The RAW yields a consistent game system based on "your Wizard spells" being spells you gained from the Wizard list, but folk will invevitably continue to RAI in all kinds of ways.

One motivation that folk might have is that they're concerned to be able to use War Magic with cantrips EK might find a way to access from other spell lists. For me the problem is that then requires torturous reasoning about why "your Wizard cantrips" doesn't limit it to... wizard cantrips. Possibly including theories that "Wizard" is code for "Eldritch Knight"... notwithstanding that if that was intended surely "your Eldritch Knight cantrips" or even just "your cantrips" would have been better motivated.

And up thread (my #357) I gave the mechanical basis for excluding spells appearing on the wizard spell list but gained from a different list such as sorcerer or warlock.

Yeah if you have spells via other classes, feats, or whatever its not working with war magic. Wizards yes, Elf and Magic Initiate:wizard maybe, anything else no.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah if you have spells via other classes, feats, or whatever its not working with war magic. Wizards yes, Elf and Magic Initiate:wizard maybe, anything else no.

A thought experiment I found helpful is to picture a character that

has the War Magic feature​

​

does not have Spellcasting​

​

has Magic Initiate, wizard spell list​

​

It seems unmotivated in this case to say that War Magic wouldn't allow casting of a wizard cantrip gained and castable by the character due to Magic Initiate. Nothing in RAW appears to be contravened. One has to otherwise speculate that there are unused categories of cantrips such as "your Magic Initiate wizard spell list cantrips" and "your Elven Lineage wizard spell list cantrips" which would go on to imply the categories "your Wizard wizard spell list cantrips" and "your Eldritch Knight wizard spell list cantrips"... !?

 

[Zardnaar]

A thought experiment I found helpful is to picture a character that

has the War Magic feature​

​

does not have Spellcasting​

​

has Magic Initiate, wizard spell list​

​

It seems unmotivated in this case to say that War Magic wouldn't allow casting of a wizard cantrip gained and castable by the character due to Magic Initiate. Nothing in RAW appears to be contravened. One has to otherwise speculate that there are unused categories of cantrips such as "your Magic Initiate wizard spell list cantrips" and "your Elven Lineage wizard spell list cantrips" which would go on to imply the categories "your Wizard wizard spell list cantrips" and "your Eldritch Knight wizard spell list cantrips"... !?

Heh point.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is untrue. Wizards at high level can cast spells they do not know. They can even cast spells not on the Wizard list.

By learning and then casting Wish? Is there some other way?