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

[Will Brandiman]

No it doesn’t. Only the exact wording matters. You might use context to try and infer authorial intent: RAI.

But it doesn’t matter how YOU interpret it, since the DM is the referee and you are not the DM. Now, I can’t say for sure how your DM would interpret it, but there are a bunch of actual DMs on this thread telling you they see no reason to adjudicate “EK only”.

There is no place on the official character sheet to record how a character acquired a cantrip. If you know a cantrip you know it, the source information is discarded. Clearly it’s possible to check if it’s a wizard cantrip or not by looking at the wizard spell list, but there is no way to check how the character learned it.

D&D Beyond actually does track this and shows the source of EK spells as 'Fighter' but that doesn't really matter as I agree with most people on this thread that an EK can use War Magic with any Wizard cantrip, not just those granted by the EK subclass.

 

[ECMO3]

No it doesn’t. Only the exact wording matters. You might use context to try and infer authorial intent: RAI.

Not true. Context is part of a words meaning and meaning is important to intent.

For example:

On your turn, you can move a distance equal to your Speed or less.

This is the first sentence from Movement and Positioning. If I am to take your statement as fact this means RAW I can move straight up 30 feet into the air on my turn because it does not say anywhere that I have to move along the ground. The fact that the context of the rest of the section and common sense strongly implies this means along the ground is irrelevant.

There is no place on the official character sheet to record how a character acquired a cantrip.

Actually it does. See red boxes on the attached screenshot from my DNDBeyond character sheet from the last EK I played:

 

[barouqeworks]

On your turn, you can move a distance equal to your Speed or less.

This is the first sentence from Movement and Positioning. If I am to take your statement as fact this means RAW I can move straight up 30 feet into the air on my turn because it does not say anywhere that I have to move along the ground. The fact that the context of the rest of the section and common sense strongly implies this means along the ground is irrelevant.

Terrible example, because 30 feet of movement doesnt mean "anywhere i want" RAW. to move 30 feet in the air you would have to have a flying speed, to move 30 feet in water without it being difficult terrain, you have to have a swimming speed. to move 30 feet underground, digging speed.
You are mixing up RAI with RAW, and if we are gonna go with "well it says fighter and not wizard" argument

i guess by your interpretation of the rules, you cannot use those cantrips for your war magic, right? since theyre fighter cantrips and not wizard cantrips?

using how dnd beyond tracks spells and feats doesn't help your argument, especially when that site isnt able to code aberration and clockwork sorcerer correctly or list the correct damage for dragonwing bow. all it does is list the sources of the features and spells. throughout the subclass, it says "eldritch knight takes from the wizard spell list" through and through. everything including your cantrips RAW

 

[ECMO3]

Terrible example, because 30 feet of movement doesnt mean "anywhere i want" RAW.

Yeah just like "cast a Wizard Cantrip" does not mean I can cast any Wizard Cantrip I want.

There is a difference between meaning and intent and in context it is clear what both of these examples mean without "exact wording" stating such.

to move 30 feet in the air you would have to have a flying speed, to move 30 feet in water without it being difficult terrain, you have to have a swimming speed.

Ok first a clarification on the rules: Simming has nothing to do with difficult terrain. When swimming each foot of movement costs an extra foot of movement and that is if it is NOT difficult terrain. If it is difficult terrain it costs two extra feet of movement to swim (this is in the rules glossary).

Now to address this post:

RAW according to what you said earlier "Only exact wording matters" and it does not have any exact wording saying I need to have a fly speed to move up into the air.

Further, it does say that swimming each foot of movement costs two feet if I do not have a swim speed. But it does not say I have to swim when in water. So if I want to swim then yes this "exact wording" would apply, but can't I just as easily move through the water without swimming and do it at my full movement without spending an extra foot for each foot .... because why not it does not have any "exact wording" on it?

Your response here underscores my point - I can't move up in the air, I can't walk through an ocean and I can't cast any Cantrip from the Wizard list because in context the section on movement and position and in context the EK subclass makes it clear what these rules mean without "exact wording" stipulating so.

You are mixing up RAI with RAW, and if we are gonna go with "well it says fighter and not wizard" argument

i guess by your interpretation of the rules, you cannot use those cantrips for your war magic, right? since theyre fighter cantrips and not wizard cantrips?

I actually said this earlier in the post, the wording is terrible and you have to read the section in context to understand the meaning of "Wizard spell" and "Wizard Cantrip" as they relate to EK. The spells the Eldritch Knight gets are "Wizard spells" and it says so in the EK subclass section. It does not just say they choose from the Wizard list, it states they are Wizard spells and refers to them as Wizard Spells and "your Wizard Spells" (and "Wizard Cantrip") throughout that section.

I will also point out that it states "Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your Wizard spells." not the spells you selected as an Eldritch Knight. It specifies "your Wizard spells" which includes your "Wizard Cantrips". So if your position that "Wizard spell" means any spell on the Wizard list, wouldn't this overide the casting stat on any spells you have from another class? If I have Firebolt as a Sorcerer or something on Charisma through Magic Initiate(Wizard) or Elf, do I have to cast it with intelligence now since it is a "Wizard spell".

Again in context it is explicitly clear what they mean, without any exact wording!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Actually it does

I was referring to the PRINT character sheet. Or are we going to have different rules for print and digital character sheets now?

 

[Nefermandias]

Usually I dumped Intelligence, maxed Charisma and multiclassed with a Bard, Sorcerer or Warlock, usually with a 1-4 level dip in one of those.

If that's how you "loved" Eldritch Knight, I guess the changes are working as intended.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I actually said this earlier in the post, the wording is terrible and you have to read the section in context to understand the meaning of "Wizard spell" and "Wizard Cantrip" as they relate to EK.

The wording is perfectly fine.

If you want to read it the way you do, do it.

The spells the Eldritch Knight gets are "Wizard spells" and it says so in the EK subclass section. It does not just say they choose from the Wizard list, it states they are Wizard spells and refers to them as Wizard Spells and "your Wizard Spells" (and "Wizard Cantrip") throughout that section.

I guess you can read it that way.

I will also point out that it states "Intelligence is your spellcasting ability for your Wizard spells." not the spells you selected as an Eldritch Knight. It specifies "your Wizard spells" which includes your "Wizard Cantrips". So if your position that "Wizard spell" means any spell on the Wizard list, wouldn't this overide the casting stat on any spells you have from another class?

Yes, this seems like a good point.

If I have Firebolt as a Sorcerer

This is not, as it is a sorcerer spell.

or something on Charisma through Magic Initiate(Wizard) or Elf

These are debatable as they alsonrefer to wizard spells.

, do I have to cast it with intelligence now since it is a "Wizard spell".

Probanly not.

Again in context it is explicitly clear what they mean, without any exact wording!

Maybe you are correct in this case. Maybe when levelling up, you should juggle your spells a bit around, so none of your cantrips from the feat are useful durong an attack sequence.

So maybe you need int for wizard spells after all. I guess that is a plus for the eldritch knight.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It appears to me that one objective of the 2024 rules is to make it straightforward to have only one casting stat. Hence, for example, you can have Magic Initiate (Wizard) with Charisma if you so choose.

You can still break this by multiclassing, but then, it’s supposed to have drawbacks.

 

[Zardnaar]

It appears to me that one objective of the 2024 rules is to make it straightforward to have only one casting stat. Hence, for example, you can have Magic Initiate (Wizard) with Charisma if you so choose.

You can still break this by multiclassing, but then, it’s supposed to have drawbacks.

Not sure how many people realize how good that is.

An upcast chromatic orb has been compared to chain lightning. Not bad deal for spellcaster classes lacking chain lightning.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not sure how many people realize how good that is.

An upcast chromatic orb has been compared to chain lightning. Not bad deal for spellcaster classes lacking chain lightning.

I just like that bards can now cast shillelagh on their lute.