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

It does not have to be. You can always have high int and either high dex or str. You can easily live with lower dex or str and a bit lower constitution.
Starting out with double 16 or 17/15 is not terrible, depending on your plans for feats.

While cha and wis is nice to have, int is also quite nice. Knowledge skills are rolled a lot in our games.

Main reason for us is true strike, scorching ray or hold person.

If I was using cha or wis booming blade or gfb.

Human could take guide followed by Magic Initiate:wizard and key true strike with chavor wis I suppose.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

my goal was to show that duplicate spells were likely not an intentional consideration.
I agree with you about this. It emerges from the system they wanted, but that doesn't mean it was intentional.

I don't even think containing them was unavoidable, per se,
Here I slightly disagree: to my analysis it is difficult to avoid. Those aiming to refute my analysis will surely be able to show here the rules they have in mind that avoid it without harm to the affordances of the current text.

I do not think anyone on the design team ever gave a single thought to someone intentionally taking duplicate spells

I think a lot of the feat and species design allowing retraining on a level up is in service of giving people the chance to avoid that exact thing, because when it happened before it was a problem caused by inflexible rules.
These conjectures are in contradiction: if they gave no thought to it, they cannot have designed retraining in order to avoid it.
 

It does not have to be. You can always have high int and either high dex or str. You can easily live with lower dex or str and a bit lower constitution.
Starting out with double 16 or 17/15 is not terrible, depending on your plans for feats.

While cha and wis is nice to have, int is also quite nice. Knowledge skills are rolled a lot in our games.
I didn’t dump strength. I kept it at 14 because I wanted the option to grab other weapons if need be. If it wasn’t a heist game, I would have dumped Dex but I kept it at 12.
 

Main reason for us is true strike, scorching ray or hold person.

If I was using cha or wis booming blade or gfb.

Human could take guide followed by Magic Initiate:wizard and key true strike with chavor wis I suppose.
Of course. You can use all of it with 16 in your stat. So Str 16 and Int 16, soon raised to 18 and 18 is perfectly fine. Or 20 and 16. Or 18 and 16 and some feats. Yes, once every 20 attacks you miss once more or twice more... And enemies save vs your DC. But this does not make anything unusable.

It is a bit more noticable where score is added to damage as you constantly lose a bit. But the difference between +1 and +3 to damage is more impactful than between +3 and +5 to damage.

If you roll a 1 on a damage die, +3 is 100% more damage than +1, and +5 is only 50% more than +3.

So again: starting with magic initiate wizard and 15 Str, and 17 int (custom background or human, or elf for just true strike...) using a great sword at level 7 with good old str(+3) and true strike (+4) and great weapon mastery (taken at level 6) and warcaster (taken at level 4) is perfectly fine.
 

Of course. You can use all of it with 16 in your stat. So Str 16 and Int 16, soon raised to 18 and 18 is perfectly fine. Or 20 and 16. Or 18 and 16 and some feats. Yes, once every 20 attacks you miss once more or twice more... And enemies save vs your DC. But this does not make anything unusable.

It is a bit more noticable where score is added to damage as you constantly lose a bit. But the difference between +1 and +3 to damage is more impactful than between +3 and +5 to damage.

If you roll a 1 on a damage die, +3 is 100% more damage than +1, and +5 is only 50% more than +3.

So again: starting with magic initiate wizard and 15 Str, and 17 int (custom background or human, or elf for just true strike...) using a great sword at level 7 with good old str(+3) and true strike (+4) and great weapon mastery (taken at level 6) and warcaster (taken at level 4) is perfectly fine.
Warcaster is a wasted feat if you aren’t using a shield.
 

Warcaster is a wasted feat if you aren’t using a shield.
Not really. Keeping concentration is good. Being able to cast a spell as a reaction is good. You can just take +1 in, +1 str instead.
And you can use a shield. And a long sword. And replace GWM with shield master at 4 and mage slayer at 8.

Or take keen mind or observant. Two nice feats.
 

Or take keen mind or observant. Two nice feats.
For an "eldritch investigator" I like taking GWM at 4 (STR to 18) Observant at 6 (INT to 15, expertise Investigation) and Fey-touched at 8 (INT to 16).

There are of course a vast number of options. I don't need Warcaster as I'm assuming either Arcana + Jeweler's Tools will allow crafting a Ruby of the War Mage for 50gp, or DM will allow a hand free even while holding a 2H weapon.

If both of those are ruled out, then maybe Warcaster instead of Fey-touched (possibly taken earlier, too) and probably go with sword-and-board. Charger then, instead of GWM, for synergy with Orcish Adrenaline Rush.
 

I agree with you about this. It emerges from the system they wanted, but that doesn't mean it was intentional.

thumbs up

Here I slightly disagree: to my analysis it is difficult to avoid. Those aiming to refute my analysis will surely be able to show here the rules they have in mind that avoid it without harm to the affordances of the current text.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by harm, but I think if you put the effort into it you could phrase a rule about it without impacting the other design desires. I'm not going to put in that effort personally, I just am fully confident it could be done.

These conjectures are in contradiction: if they gave no thought to it, they cannot have designed retraining in order to avoid it.

Not in contradiction because of the word "intentional". The issue was usually one of two situations

1) "I want Shadow-Touched for spell X. This gives me invisibility from this feat, but I already have invisibility from [other source]. This is not what I want, but there is no way to retrain it in [other source], and therefore I am forced into this sub-optimal situation"

2) "I want to have Mage Hand from level 1, to keep thematic consistency with my Arcane Trickster, but by level 3 this is a waste and there is no way to retrain the cantrip from level 1. Therefore I either abandon the consistency I want, or am stuck in a sub-optimal situation"

For me, taking the same spell twice intentionally is doing so with the goal of having the same spell twice, not it being a consequence of unavoidable overlap. The unavoidable overlap happened, and was such an annoyance that it was specifically worked to be removed from the game.
 

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by harm, but I think if you put the effort into it you could phrase a rule about it without impacting the other design desires. I'm not going to put in that effort personally, I just am fully confident it could be done.
We will have to agree to disagree: the burden lies on those who believe it can be done to show how.

Not in contradiction because of the word "intentional". The issue was usually one of two situations

1) "I want Shadow-Touched for spell X. This gives me invisibility from this feat, but I already have invisibility from [other source]. This is not what I want, but there is no way to retrain it in [other source], and therefore I am forced into this sub-optimal situation"

2) "I want to have Mage Hand from level 1, to keep thematic consistency with my Arcane Trickster, but by level 3 this is a waste and there is no way to retrain the cantrip from level 1. Therefore I either abandon the consistency I want, or am stuck in a sub-optimal situation"

For me, taking the same spell twice intentionally is doing so with the goal of having the same spell twice, not it being a consequence of unavoidable overlap. The unavoidable overlap happened, and was such an annoyance that it was specifically worked to be removed from the game.
That helps me see what you were getting at. Allowing characters to adjust their spells was in 3rd edition

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows​

And we've seen it spread to other classes and become more permissive since then. I believe it was motivated by a desire to let classes remove lower level spells that became redundant at higher level. Especially for those with fewer known in the first place, like sorcerer. But then, players liked the flexibility to tweak their characters to suit their experienced and expected play so designers expanded on it.

I think it has little to do with spell duplication, although I agree those are benefits emerge from it. Here too, let's agree to disagree: we are both speculating unless better testimony can be found.
 


Trending content

Remove ads

Top