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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.​

Question for those people that think casting a spell from a scroll makes the activation cost of the item a magic action:

Is casting a one action spell in place of an attack changing the casting time to not an action? So a valor bard casting true strike in place of an attack can't use their battle magic?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I'm fine with the shrug, but if it was a shrug from the beginning, seems like a strange interjection to make.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Good luck with that

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Except that the level 10 Bard feature specifically says those count as bard spells for your character. So it doesn't make sense that they needed to open up Valor Bard spells to cover multiple spell lists in that case.

I really think it is more of a factor that the Eldritch Knight is attached to a non-spellcasting class, while the Bard is a full caster. Again, the same thing happened with the Tasha's Bladesinger wizard, which does not specify a spell list.

(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.

Shrug I made that change ages ago, and my tables usually don't bother with handedness for spell components. Not only is it generally trivial to juggle as needed, but there is no reason for Palaidn's and Clerics to have superior casting with shields than anyone else.

Frankly, I wish focuses DID something, but that's completely off-topic.

And also, I've been fine with acknowledging the RAW of Wizard spells. Where I have been frustrated is the attempt to make "Eldritch Knight Spells" a thing, despite lacking any reasonable textual evidence.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Is there a need to be so aggressive just because I wanted to again point out that it isn't really something people do, in light of ECMO3 berating me for days over their "totally real" character build that completely invalidates any opinion I could possibly have since I didn't immediately lie to them and claim to have a counter-example and send them a sheet I made just for that purpose?

Yeah, I saw what you said. My agreeing and doubling down on it doesn't mean I had any trouble understanding it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

But why would there be any edge cases?

Sure, as Sorcerers Apprentice points out, if you made a wizard/Sorcerer and if your intelligence was higher then there is a valid difference between using the spell as a wizard (With a better attack stat and DC) and with Innate Sorcerery (with advantage on a lower attack stat and... possibly the same DC or lower) but other than that highly specific case there should be never be a question on which stat you want to use.

The only case I've seen with someone in a similar situation came about in 2014, where characters would have no choice in the matter. For example, the tielfling monk. They would have charisma based Hellish Rebuke... which they didn't care about and only did as an after-thought, because Charisma wasn't an important stat for them. But now, those characters are all getting re-worked for the Tiefling ability to use Wisdom, because then it is in a better stat.

I think you would really struggle to find a likely edge case beyond the Wizard/Sorcerer, which isn't even a benefit depending on how wide the gap is, and the smaller the gap is... the less likely it is for it to matter because the dice all use the same numbers.

 

[clearstream]

Except that the level 10 Bard feature specifically says those count as bard spells for your character. So it doesn't make sense that they needed to open up Valor Bard spells to cover multiple spell lists in that case.

Well, it shows yet again why it is right to say that spells are typed according to the list they were learned from. There is no Eldritch Knight spell list (nor a Magic Initiate list, nor an Elven Lineage list) but there are Bard, Cleric, Druid and Wizard spell lists. That's why it has to be spelled out: there could be a spell found only on the Cleric list that a Bard can take, and the rule counts that spell as nevertheless learned from the Bard list. Were that not stated, then any spell learned from the Cleric list would count as a Cleric spell.

I really think it is more of a factor that the Eldritch Knight is attached to a non-spellcasting class, while the Bard is a full caster. Again, the same thing happened with the Tasha's Bladesinger wizard, which does not specify a spell list.

In a way, and the consistent principle is "does this class have a spell list" which all full casters have.* There can be Paladin spells and Ranger spells, but there cannot be Eldritch Knight spells. Were EK to be given it's own spell list, that would change because then there would be an Eldritch Knight list that spells could be learned of. As it is, their spells are Wizard spells... because they are learned from the Wizard spell list.

*I've heard "full caster" used to mean the spells known and castable progression. There could thus be such a full caster "F" with the spell progression of a Wizard, but lacking a spell list: there would nevertheless be no "F spells". Possibly the term must be expanded to requiring a spell list!

And also, I've been fine with acknowledging the RAW of Wizard spells. Where I have been frustrated is the attempt to make "Eldritch Knight Spells" a thing, despite lacking any reasonable textual evidence.

It makes sense as an initial hypothesis. What does "a Wizard spell" imply in the context of EK features? Hypothetically, it implies that the EK is some sort of wizard caster and it means their spells, i.e. "Eldritch Knight spells". Having tested that hypothesis, it not ony lacks evidence but there is strong evidence against it: the better theory turned out to be something else.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Frankly, I wish focuses DID something, but that's completely off-topic

There are focus in the Eberron book that add a small bonus to spells cast with them. Then there are standard magic staves and wands, including some that give a bonus to save DCs and/or attack rolls.

I house rule that a focus can always be used for S components. And additional components can always be added by the caster, irrespective of if the spell has them by default or not.

 

[clearstream]

I think you would really struggle to find a likely edge case beyond the Wizard/Sorcerer, which isn't even a benefit depending on how wide the gap is, and the smaller the gap is... the less likely it is for it to matter because the dice all use the same numbers.

No struggle at all: I've played characters who leveraged the mechanics in that way. Mainly with 1st- and 2nd-level spells getting a free cast from a feat but also with a class or sub-class feature that offers a benefit. Mulling possible cases that could motivate learning the same spell from multiple lists...

Feat free casts as discussed (Magic Initiate, Fey-touched, Shadow-touched, Telepathic)
Innate Sorcery as discussed
Aberrant Mind sorcerer Psionic Sorcery
Wild Magic sorcerer Wild Magic Surge
Warlock spell slots
Some warlock invocations
Abjurer wizard Empowered Evocation and Overchannel

Caveat: I am sure of the feat free cast motivation as I've played it. I haven't made characters exploring all the other possible combinations, but as usual multiclassing will open up numerous valid strategies.

 

[Zardnaar]

No struggle at all: I've played characters who leveraged the mechanics in that way. Mainly with 1st- and 2nd-level spells getting a free cast from a feat but also with a class or sub-class feature that offers a benefit. Mulling possible cases that could motivate learning the same spell from multiple lists...

Feat free casts as discussed (Magic Initiate, Fey-touched, Shadow-touched, Telepathic)
Innate Sorcery as discussed
Aberrant Mind sorcerer Psionic Sorcery
Wild Magic sorcerer Wild Magic Surge
Warlock spell slots
Some warlock invocations
Abjurer wizard Empowered Evocation and Overchannel

Caveat: I am sure of the feat free cast motivation as I've played it. I haven't made characters exploring all the other possible combinations, but as usual multiclassing will open up numerous valid strategies.

I think the magic initiate and touched feats are mvp ones for a lot of spellcasters. And warcaster.