D&D 5E The Eldritch Knight...what am I missing?

[Blue]

Bladesinger is a no go because it forces you to be an elf and it's basically a wizard that can do a melee dance a couple times a day. Warlocks are too squishy to be fully melee capable, and what blaster cleric are you referring to? War/Tempest domain?

I understand a 50/50 mix isnt going to blast like a dedicated evoker wizard or sorcerer or warlock, but if he can attain half that capability, i'd be happy.

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] talked a little about Warlock getting fixed by starting with a level of fighter, and that can cure a lot of issues. Heck a Fighter 1/Abjurer X has great defenses and almost full casting, with spells known to match spell levels. But with only one attack they are hard doing melee, though the SCAG cantrips help level that playing field.

Full casters that can get Extra Attack or the equivalent are Warlock (Blade), Bard (Valor) and Wizard (Bladesinger). Amusingly you don't even need to be in bladesong use the wizard extra attack - with a level of something for heavy armor you could ignore bladesong all together, though that's giving up much of what that class brings. As a side note "melee dance a couple of times per day" is "melee dance all or most of the day if the DM is following the 6-8 encounters a day with 2 short rests about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way though". Though in my experience we have less than 6 encounters a day, making it even more likely to be all of them. Sorry elf/half-elf is a non-starter for you.

Tempest and Light with their spells added are the biggest blaster in the core books. Though Light doesn't get the extra weapon/armor profs, but still has medium and shields which is pretty good.

As a side note, with the advent of the SCAG cantrips, have you thought about a Mountain Dwarf Abjurer? You'll have proficiency with a number of martial axes and hammers, medium armor (no shields, but 2-handed weapons are better so you don't need warcaster), and full wizard (or whatever) casting. Extra attack isn't compatible with the SCAG cantrips anyhow. You'll have Shield, Absorb Elements and your Arcane Ward feature for defense from level 1 without using an action to cast or taking your concentration which you can use for a buff like Haste. That could give you plenty of blasting.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

For those of you saying EKs make great archers, to which I like the idea of it as well, but...

It seems unfortunate that weapon bond doesn't appear to allow for ammunition. Which is a shame.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For those of you saying EKs make great archers, to which I like the idea of it as well, but...

It seems unfortunate that weapon bond doesn't appear to allow for ammunition. Which is a shame.

Heh. Good point.

Go Team Sling!

(Though really, Weapon Bond on a Longview + Rapier still isn't an complete waste.)

 

[Saggo]

For those of you saying EKs make great archers, to which I like the idea of it as well, but...

It seems unfortunate that weapon bond doesn't appear to allow for ammunition. Which is a shame.

This is true, but consider what it does give. You have access to your bow as much as any Battlemaster, Rogue, or Ranger, with the benefit of no disarms or the benefit of bonding a dagger and a rapier for unparalleled ranged/melee weapon access. Disarming shenanigans would actually occur less with ranged EKs, given the tendency for (you know) range, mitigates some of the risk of bonding with alternatives.

I've also seen houserule options for bonding bow/quiver as a pair or bonding a quiver as your second choice.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

That being said, as a DM, I would totally allow an archer EK to choose "quiver of arrows" as their second weapon bond. But that's just me trying to adhere to the Rule of Cool.

 

[zaratan]

It's a playstyle thing really. Wizards get better and more flexible spells (can change every short rest). Sorcerers get a better action economy for the few relatively limited spells they can learn. Sorcerers synergize better with a Warlock dip--not just for the Cha dependency, but for the "accumulate arbitrary numbers of spell slots as long as you never take a long rest" silliness (which you will probably never actually use in a real game but is fun to think about). Also, an EK X/Wizard X can swap spells with another wizard in the party, enhancing both PCs with the synergy (by relieving the pressure on "spells known" which otherwise causes unpleasant dilemmas for any wizard), whereas a Sorc has no such synergy.

EK 11/Sorc 9 or EK 11/Sorc 7/Warlock 2 certainly is an interesting idea for someone who wants to double down on EK "blastiness" with a limited spell list, and you'd get enough spells off the wizard list (Absorb Elements being the standout) to cover some of the Sorc's weaknesses. I thank you for mentioning that idea. It has advantages and disadvantages relative to EK/Wizard.

Edit: after thinking about it for a while, my question is, "Why would you play an EK 11/Sorc 9 over a Fighter 1/Warlock 2/Sorcerer 17?" If your plan is to shoot three arrows and then Eldritch Blast, why wouldn't you be okay with just Eldritch Blasting twice AND having way more spells including Wish?

So, my hypothesis is that EK 11/Wizard 9 has a niche because it allows you to have good at-will attack capabilities and still be a wizard (with a flexible spell list, ritual casting, etc.), whereas EK 11/Sorc 9 does not have a niche because it's dominated by Sorlock builds.

If you want ranged attack, yes sorlock is probably a better option. But if you want melee, EK/sorc will be better. You can make 3 attacks and than cast a spell and all targets from that and the last round will save with desadvantage, none full caster have that and warlock doesn't have that too. And you have fullplate, action surge, fighting style, second wind and more HP. You cast haste as bonus action and make 7 attacks with action surge at first round, make more 4 at second and cast a spell with your bonus action that up to 11 targets will save with desadvantege. A melee Sorlock can't get even close to that.

Yes, I agree that wiz get you more flexybility, but lat's face reality, as an EK, what you want is damage and survivability, you don't need 20 spells for that.

I would think its because it would make you too MAD for one, and the other is that all the spells you would have up to EK 11 would be wizard spells and therefore require INT and the sorcerer spells learned after that would require CHA no?

no, you dump Int in that case, you will grab as EK spells like shield that don't need Int. And get spells that need ST from enemies as sorcerer.

You only need to bump Cha and Str (or dex). And you don't need Cha 20, because targets will save with desadvantage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you want ranged attack, yes sorlock is probably a better option. But if you want melee, EK/sorc will be better. You can make 3 attacks and than cast a spell and all targets from that and the last round will save with desadvantage, none full caster have that and warlock doesn't have that too. And you have fullplate, action surge, fighting style, second wind and more HP. You cast haste as bonus action and make 7 attacks with action surge at first round, make more 4 at second and cast a spell with your bonus action that up to 11 targets will save with desadvantege. A melee Sorlock can't get even close to that.

Yes, I agree that wiz get you more flexybility, but lat's face reality, as an EK, what you want is damage and survivability, you don't need 20 spells for that.

Interesting. What spell do you envision using for the payoff here? Hold Monster? Hypnotic Pattern? Both of those will break Haste (concentration loss) which means you lose your action on your "next turn" which may or may not prevent you from finishing your Hold Monster (ask your DM). I think you might be better off without Haste.

Imposing disadvantage on a lot of targets over two rounds is interesting, but is it worth investing eleven levels in fighter first? I'm not yet persuaded but I'm interested to hear more.

Bear in mind that a regular old Sorlock can already impose disadvantage via Heightened Spell, so I am looking for a case where imposing disadvantage on lots of targets is a killer app worth building a PC around.

 

[zaratan]

Interesting. What spell do you envision using for the payoff here? Hold Monster? Hypnotic Pattern? Both of those will break Haste (concentration loss) which means you lose your action on your "next turn" which may or may not prevent you from finishing your Hold Monster (ask your DM). I think you might be better off without Haste.

Imposing disadvantage on a lot of targets over two rounds is interesting, but is it worth investing eleven levels in fighter first? I'm not yet persuaded but I'm interested to hear more.

if you're using haste, will be probably an evocation spell. But as you said, you don't need to use haste.

You're not an EK only because desadvantage, just check what an EK 11 can do. You're EK probably because DPR.
Still, why would you go 11 lvls as EK to be a 9th wizard? If you want to choose to use your action to attack or cast spells, go full wizard, fighter 1/wiz 19 or fighter 2/wiz 18 for action surge. You could go full EK.

But yeah, attack once, cast hold person as bonus action targeting saving with desadvantage and make more two crit attacks in the same turn is really great. You can burn legendary resistance better than your wizard without a 9th spell (and let him use that spell in the right time) and still do high DPR in the same turn. That's why you multiclassed as EK. Let the utility of many spells to another player.

What you said about warlock, I agree. Even 1 lvl in warlock can add much in a EK/sorc (hex, armor of agathys, short rest shield, dissonant whisppers or temp HP), but you lose your 5th lvl spell (you still have the slots).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

if you're using haste, will be probably an evocation spell. But as you said, you don't need to use haste.

You're not an EK only because desadvantage, just check what an EK 11 can do. You're EK probably because DPR.
Still, why would you go 11 lvls as EK to be a 9th wizard? If you want to choose to use your action to attack or cast spells, go full wizard, fighter 1/wiz 19 or fighter 2/wiz 18 for action surge. You could go full EK.

But yeah, attack once, cast hold person as bonus action targeting saving with desadvantage and make more two crit attacks in the same turn is really great. You can burn legendary resistance better than your wizard without a 9th spell (and let him use that spell in the right time) and still do high DPR in the same turn. That's why you multiclassed as EK. Let the utility of many spells to another player.

What you said about warlock, I agree. Even 1 lvl in warlock can add much in a EK/sorc (hex, armor of agathys, short rest shield, dissonant whisppers or temp HP), but you lose your 5th lvl spell (you still have the slots).

EK 11/Wiz 9 is superior to Fighter 1/Wiz 19 in physical combat in several ways:

(1) You get more attempts to Grapple/Push enemies.
(2) You can more easily make nonlethal attacks (which are more likely to be legal than deploying a Fireball in a barfight, or fight against lawmen).
(3) Unlike SCAG cantrips, it still works against enemies with spell immunity, like Rakshasa and Tiamat.
(4) Once Sharpshooter is factored in, you come out with a significantly higher DPR than SCAG cantrips.
(5) And of course, Sharpshooter works at range, but SCAG cantrips do not. Range is far more efficient and safer than melee in 5E.

Of course, none of this is surprising. What's mildly surprising is how competitive the Fighter 1/Wizard 19 is in melee physical combat. So if you're pointing out that going the Fighter route at all is due at least in part to someone just plain thinking fighters are cool, I agree; and if you're saying the same thing could apply to an EK/Sorc hybrid, I don't disagree.

 

[zaratan]

EK 11/Wiz 9 is superior to Fighter 1/Wiz 19 in physical combat in several ways:

(1) You get more attempts to Grapple/Push enemies.
(2) You can more easily make nonlethal attacks (which are more likely to be legal than deploying a Fireball in a barfight, or fight against lawmen).
(3) Unlike SCAG cantrips, it still works against enemies with spell immunity, like Rakshasa and Tiamat.
(4) Once Sharpshooter is factored in, you come out with a significantly higher DPR than SCAG cantrips.
(5) And of course, Sharpshooter works at range, but SCAG cantrips do not. Range is far more efficient and safer than melee in 5E.

Of course, none of this is surprising. What's mildly surprising is how competitive the Fighter 1/Wizard 19 is in melee physical combat. So if you're pointing out that going the Fighter route at all is due at least in part to someone just plain thinking fighters are cool, I agree; and if you're saying the same thing could apply to an EK/Sorc hybrid, I don't disagree.

Look like we agree in many things, lol. My point is just how EK/sorc is superior than EK/wiz, since you're EK probably because DPR, and sorc multiclass can add more of that (with consumable resources), while wiz add utility, but you lose DPR.

If you want ranged EK, full EK, EK 11/warlock2(or 3)/sorc7 (or 6), or EK 7/warlock2/rogue11 will be superior than EK11/wiz9 in DPR.