Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9533318" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I agree that is the most likely RAW that can be taken from this.Right, but wanting to focus back on my original point. The Bladesinger or the Valor bard COULD learn, say, a Cleric cantrip via either a dip or the use of Magic Initiate, and their wording of their extra attack would allow that spell to be cast in exchange for a weapon attack. I can acknowledge that, pure RAW, the Eldritch Knight is different in that it is limited to Wizard spells, but since it is the ONLY case of this limitation existing with the extra attack cantrips, I think it is fair to say that RAI could be interpreted as the Wizard Spell mention being an artifact of the writer's perspective (&quot;this class has no spell list, thus we make sure to specify which spell list they use to avoid confusion&quot;) rather than an indication that there was a balance concern at work.Agreed</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 9533318, member: 6801228"] I agree that is the most likely RAW that can be taken from this. Right, but wanting to focus back on my original point. The Bladesinger or the Valor bard COULD learn, say, a Cleric cantrip via either a dip or the use of Magic Initiate, and their wording of their extra attack would allow that spell to be cast in exchange for a weapon attack. I can acknowledge that, pure RAW, the Eldritch Knight is different in that it is limited to Wizard spells, but since it is the ONLY case of this limitation existing with the extra attack cantrips, I think it is fair to say that RAI could be interpreted as the Wizard Spell mention being an artifact of the writer's perspective ("this class has no spell list, thus we make sure to specify which spell list they use to avoid confusion") rather than an indication that there was a balance concern at work. Agreed [/QUOTE]

Verification