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

[Chaosmancer]

Veterans tend to MC more than newer players. Beyond that I make no claims and it's anecdotal.

I'll offer a counter-anecdote.

I've taught people how to play DnD and 5e in particular, while having played the game since Next. And I've had some of those players plan and play multi-classed characters, and I prefer not to play multi-class. Yes, there might be a tendency, but even if there is... that is still a full three steps removed from this situation.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Asked the exact same question. Never got an answer

 

[Zardnaar]

I'll offer a counter-anecdote.

I've taught people how to play DnD and 5e in particular, while having played the game since Next. And I've had some of those players plan and play multi-classed characters, and I prefer not to play multi-class. Yes, there might be a tendency, but even if there is... that is still a full three steps removed from this situation.

Yeah I don't go around claiming to many absolutes.

Vast majority of D&D players are probably casuals and ENworlds not remotely representative of the player base either.

Beyond that shrug.

 

[ECMO3]

o, now that I have listed 25 characters in actual play who don't use multiple casting stats, I win right? That's how this argument works the most "real" examples win?

No because only one of them is a multiclass caster (the Drow Bard-Warlock).

I want you yo post multiclassed characters to support your claim that 90% do not build with multiple casting stats.

As of right now you still lose.

Or is this kind of a pointless exercise that you keep hammering on, like somehow my telling you Most people I play with don't multiclass and most of their multiclasses aren't combining multiple casting stats is enough.

It is not enough to support your claim and the fact that most people you play with don't multiclass means you actually have limited experience with it.

I've been in three games that use the 2024 rules. Those characters are all listed above. Good enough evidence for you, right?

No. That is not enough to support your claim. Further if these are ALL the 2024 games you have been involved in the you have no experience tyo draw from.

What I want you to say is this:

"I have only seen one multiclass caster in play using 2024 rules so I, Chaosmancer, really don't have any idea how people build multiclass characters and I must be wrong in my earlier statement"

I hate accusing people of reading comprehension problems, I feel it is rude. But my only other recourse is to assume you are willfully lying, by taking "none of my groups currently have a multi-class character" to mean "No one at tables I play with play multiclass characters"

You may hate accusing people, but I LOVE to point out when people trolling me try to claim they said something different than they actually said:

"Do you want me to make random characters? I personally don't play multiclass characters, and none of my DnD groups currently have any multiclass characters. 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."

You didn't just claim that you currently have no multiclass casters. You claim you have no real character you are currently aware of (although one of them is in fact a multiclass character).

You made a statement.

You doubled down and clarified that statement to specify that you are only referring to 2024 rules.

You now have stated you have only played 3 games using the 2024 rules and further reiterated out that you don't have experience with enough characters you have seen in those games using 2024 rules to draw and conclusions from and certainly not enough to back up your 90% claim.

I could attempt to dredge my entire gaming history

You have provided all your history using 2024 rules and that history shows that you don't have any relevant experience to draw conclusions from.

I think that is another ten or so multiclasses showing the exact same logic I keep talking about? You likely won't count them as "real" though. At least this only took me two minutes to google.

No it isn't. There are two listed in there that support your position and saying you read about something on a forum is quite different from having experience with it.

Seriously, I keep waiting for you to make ANY other point than to crow about how you think I don't know anything because I didn't have a dozen examples of multiclass characters to show you.

Well this is my thread and I am not going to make any other point with you until you admit you are wrong, you don't really have any idea and retract or reword your claim.

Really? You didn't list every single mutli-classed character at every single table you've ever played at or seen on a youtube video, so why should I believe you?

Because I did show a character I am playing right now.

Please elucidate me on my expierence with 2024. I'd love to hear how you know the games I've been in better than me.

Reading comprehension (and again unlike you I LOVE this): I did not say "I know" I said "I think"

 

[clearstream]

I just... don't think it needs to be limited like that. Whenever you level, you can swap spells around, especially cantrips. I don't see a power problem with allowing a character who learned Fire Bolt as an Artificer from using the War Magic ability, especially since we can see that the "wizard cantrip" limitation does not exist for Valor Bard, nor did it exist on the Bladesinger wizard.

That the game text contains examples of both more and less permissive text buttresses my arguments

Level 6: Extra Attack (Valor)​

You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. In addition, you can cast one of your cantrips that has a casting time of an action in place of one of those attacks.​

Level 14: Battle Magic (Valor)​

After you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action, you can make one attack with a weapon as a Bonus Action.​

​

Level 7: War Magic (EK)​

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

​

Level 18: Improved War Magic (EK)​

When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace two of the attacks with a casting of one of your level 1 or level 2 Wizard spells that has a casting time of an action.​

EK is distinctly limited to Wizard spells, while VB has greater freedom. One justification is that at level 10 Bards get access to cleric, druid and wizard spell lists: that's in the class core and doesn't rely on species choices, feats, or multiclassing.

It is a valid limitation if you want to add it, but I don't see a reason to add it, other than a strict RAW reading of the class feature.

(Emphasis mine.) My focus is of course to show which reading is best motivated by the words themselves. You touch on other motivations - power, equity, agency - which are valid. I see my arguments as helpful toward those goals, and the difference between us might then come down to approaches. Having found a consistent comprehension of the RAW, I can House Rule over it to produce more robust play. For example, I could House Rule that

a casting of one of your Wizard cantrips that has a casting time of an action​

​

is replaced at our table by

​

a casting of one of your cantrips that has a casting time of an action​

​

Although I wouldn't because I don't share your concerns in that regard, and I don't agree that EK needs that sort of equity with Bard. However, I will House Rule that EK War Bond contains the text

In addition, you can use a weapon you have bonded to yourself as a Spellcasting Focus to cast your Wizard spells.​

​

And based on @Sorcerers Apprentice's effective arguments up thread, I'll read that as covering their M and S components.

 

[Umbran]

As of right now you still lose.

Mod note:
Keep this up, and you will find out that in trying to "win" a discussion, you will lose, too.

Well this is my thread ...

EN World does not support the concept of thread ownership in a way that allows you to dictate what others post.

We are going to need you to dial it back. If that person is wrong, they are wrong. Browbeating them into submitting to your will as "proof" is not acceptable behavior.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Except... why are you multiclassing Wizard and Sorcerer? They don't mix and you end up weaker than either by doing so. Especially if you are focusing on Wizard. Like, sure, you can make a weaker attack at advantage this way, but you also could have just played a sorcerer and done that but better.

Which part of "hardly worth it" was it you had trouble understanding?

 

[clearstream]

There are some cases where duplicate cantrips could be advantageous. A Wizard/Sorcerer whose highest attribute is intelligence could take Firebolt twice. As Wizard to cast with his highest spell attack bonus most of the time, and as Sorcerer to cast with advantage when Innate Sorcery is active.

Hardly worth it, but its not a completely pointless option.

The premise of taking a spell more than once can also be validated by looking at 1st-level and above spells. For instance an Elven Lineage copy for the free cast and a sorcerer copy for Innate Sorcery.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ideally, the rules should not give you a reason to take the same spell from multiple sources. It’s clumsy design.

 

[clearstream]

Ideally, the rules should not give you a reason to take the same spell from multiple sources. It’s clumsy design.

Not to your taste perhaps, but what objectively defines "clumsy"? What would alternatives look like?

As implemented, the source type property of a spell is exclusive. That's clean. It means a spell can never have two or more different attack modifiers or save DCs at the same time! Otherwise one needs various "clumsy" rules to patch the edge cases.