Eldritch Knight - what's the point?

[Tengu_temp]

Eldritch Knight can cast a cantrip and attack once in the same turn at level 7. Any spell at level 18. But, at the same time, he can just attack normally two times at level 5, three times at 11, four times at 20.

Are there any spells or cantrips worth using with this feature? Are there any wizard self-buffs worth it for a character who's going to be heavily-armored? This class just strikes me as very underwhelming, even by fighter standards.

[Surrealistik]

The point is to be a trap "option".

There are a couple of nice low level abjurations and evocations out there (Shield, Protection From Good and Evil, Fire Shield, Stoneskin, Counterspell, Dispel Magic to name a couple), but delayed access to them is not nearly enough to compensate for how bad the Eldritch Knight is.

[pwykersotz]

Eldritch Knight can cast a cantrip and attack once in the same turn at level 7. Any spell at level 18. But, at the same time, he can just attack normally two times at level 5, three times at 11, four times at 20.

Are there any spells or cantrips worth using with this feature? Are there any wizard self-buffs worth it for a character who's going to be heavily-armored? This class just strikes me as very underwhelming, even by fighter standards.

They are circumstantial, but Blade Ward and True Strike are very worthwhile. Also Fire Bolt if you aren't Dex based to give you that extra range. But if you're looking for damage alone, extra attacks are more potent.

[Surrealistik]

Let's not try to rationalize its existence.

If you want to gish, you may as well just multiclass into an actual caster.

If you want to beat things to death with a metal stick, Battlemaster.

If you want to cast things to death, the tired and ubiquitous 2 Fighter/18 Wizard.

[Dark Tira]

Let's not try to rationalize its existence.

If you want to gish, you may as well just multiclass into an actual caster.

If you want to beat things to death with a metal stick, Battlemaster.

If you want to cast things to death, the tired and ubiquitous 2 Fighter/18 Wizard.

It deserves it's place in the gish lineup as the only caster who gets 4 attacks without buffs.

[Surrealistik]

It deserves it's place in the gish lineup as the only caster who gets 4 attacks without buffs.

Only for the sake of completeness/posterity; from an optimization perspective it is strictly underwhelming and shouldn't be bothered with.

[pwykersotz]

Let's not try to rationalize its existence.

If you want to gish, you may as well just multiclass into an actual caster.

If you want to beat things to death with a metal stick, Battlemaster.

If you want to cast things to death, the tired and ubiquitous 2 Fighter/18 Wizard.

I disagree. You'd have to go Fighter 13 / Sorc 7 (or equivalent) to get the casting progression of the EK. You also have fewer spells known that way and give up one of your iteratives and progression on your Fighter abilities. It's not useless at all.

[Merc_Kilsek]

My only issue is they limit spells from the wizard's two schools of magic. Sorta wish they just made a custom spell list to draw from.

[Surrealistik]

I disagree. You'd have to go Fighter 13 / Sorc 7 (or equivalent) to get the casting progression of the EK. You also have fewer spells known that way and give up one of your iteratives and progression on your Fighter abilities. It's not useless at all.

Sacrificing a handful of fighter features and an attack iteration for better and more versatile casting and the class features accompanying them is a sacrifice I'd be more than willing to make.

As a lone example, you could also go warlock for 4 x 1d10+X range 300 laser beams of fun, not to mention the awesome Darkness + Devil Sight combo for starters.

[pwykersotz]

Sacrificing a handful of fighter features and an attack for better and more versatile casting and the class features accompanying them is a sacrifice I'd be more than willing to make.

As a lone example, you could also go warlock for 4x1d10+5 range 300 laser beams of fun, not to mention the awesome Darkness + Devil Sight combo for starters.

Let me lay this out...this is for a playstyle, not the most power. Eldritch Knight provides a bit of casting for a primary fighter, not the best way to do the most stuff. Full casters still have the most versatility in the game. The fact that you'd be willing to make the sacrifice is great! It means your choice supports your playstyle. But it's not wrong or worthless to have EK as an option.

[Dark Tira]

Sacrificing a handful of fighter features and an attack for far better and more versatile casting and the class features accompanying them is a sacrifice I'd be more than willing to make.

As an example, you could also go warlock for 4x1d10+5 range 300 laser beams of fun, not to mention the awesome Darkness + Devil Sight combo for starters.

That's just your preference though. From an optimization standpoint in general that 4th attack could be very valuable especially if the rest of the party is also buffing the EK.

[Surrealistik]

Let me lay this out...this is for a playstyle, not the most power. Eldritch Knight provides a bit of casting for a primary fighter, not the best way to do the most stuff. Full casters still have the most versatility in the game. The fact that you'd be willing to make the sacrifice is great! It means your choice supports your playstyle. But it's not wrong or worthless to have EK as an option.

As stated earlier I am talking about a power/optimization perspective. Alternatives as a rule do Gish better from that standpoint.


@ DarkTira: Yes, there's potential for that fourth attack to make a difference if you can rely on your party to Voltron you with buffs, but if that's the case, you may as well go Battlemaster.

[Dark Tira]

As stated earlier I am talking about a power/optimization perspective.


@ DarkTira: Yes, there's potential for that fourth attack to make a difference if you can rely on your party to Voltron you with buffs, but if that's the case, you may as well go Battlemaster.

But then you'd lose out on the EK buff. Number of spellcasters in a party matter now because each (decent) buff takes concentration.

[Surrealistik]

But then you'd lose out on the EK buff. Number of spellcasters in a party matter now because each (decent) buff takes concentration.

Which is only situationally meaningful, especially when you have a party willing to buff you. You can argue that the utility of the EK buffs outweighs the sheer damage and added utility of the Battlemaster expertise dice, but I'm not really convinced.

There may be a window of circumstance in which the EK would be preferable to both a multiclassing gish and Battlemaster, but it strikes me as being very narrow indeed.

[Chambers]

I think the point is to have a basic Gish available without any need for multiclassing. I think some of the class features could be better developed (Looking at you Weapon Bond) or rearranged (Improved War Magic at lower levels) but I view the Eldritch Knight as a Fighter that also casts spells. It's not a Fighter/Wizard and not going to have as much magic as one, but it will have better HP, more ABI/Feats, and more attacks than the Fighter/Wizard.

I also don't think War Magic is a trap. By level 6 the warrior classes (Barbarian, Valorous Bard, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Thirsting Blade Warlock) all have Extra Attack. One level later the Eldritch Knight gets a second option for at-will attacking twice in a round (cantrip + weapon).

The scaling damage of the cantrip matches up with when the Fighter gets their additional Extra Attacks (2dX at 5th, 3dX at 11th, 4dX at 17th - actually a few levels before the 4th Extra Attack). The cantrip lags behind by a moderate amount (damage loss = Ability Mod to damage x number of Extra Attacks possible) but I think that's a fair trade off for the versatility of having a cantrip + weapon option instead of just weapon + weapon (+weapon, +weapon).

[Tengu_temp]

If attacking with a cantrip deals less damage then why ever do that, except for those rare situations when the enemy is resistant to your normal weapon? And on top of that Champion and Battlemaster get extra crit chance and damage respectively, further things Eldritch Knight does.

For me, a gish is a melee fighter who uses magic to improve his fighting. But 5e EK looks like a poor man's idea of a gish, a character who can both fight in melee and throw magic missiles but is nowhere near as good at either as a dedicated warrior or mage. That's very disappointing.

But then, that's not the exception. The fact that the supposedly ToB-like maneuvers of the Battlemaster turned out to be general non-standard combat actions anyone could do in 3e is also disappointing. And the supposedly amazing feats. And many other things.

[Chambers]

If attacking with a cantrip deals less damage then why ever do that, except for those rare situations when the enemy is resistant to your normal weapon?

For me the answer is because cantrips can do other things in addition to dealing damage. Shocking Grasp prevents the target from taking Reactions for a turn and you get advantage on the attack if the target is wearing metal armor. That's a pretty boss attack - deal damage, prevent Reactions, have advantage on attack. Acid Splash can target 2 creatures with the acid damage, Blade Ward grants resistance to B/P/S damage for 1 round from "weapon attacks", not the more common form of Resistance only good vs non-magical weapons. Chill Touch prevents healing for 1 round and gives an undead target Disadvantage for 1 round vs you.

[CyberThread]

EK is the martial end of the Gish range, nothing wrong with it. Especially as the feat list expands, it gives you very sexy access to those feats. EK is not a trap crap, so shut it. It doesn't get all the bells and whistles that the other two archtypes get, but it VERY much gets high access as the game expands, with new spells and feats. If someone focuses more on sword play then on magic, then it makes perfect logic, that they won't be as good with magic.


Not everything is about optimization folks.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Which is only situationally meaningful, especially when you have a party willing to buff you. You can argue that the utility of the EK buffs outweighs the sheer damage and added utility of the Battlemaster expertise dice, but I'm not really convinced.

There may be a window of circumstance in which the EK would be preferable to both a multiclassing gish and Battlemaster, but it strikes me as being very narrow indeed.

So help me in 5E if your casters are buffing you they aren't casters anymore while doing it because you with little exception only can have 1 spell at a time going thanks to Duration:Concentration. Seems to me that's quite the opportunity cost especially for arcanes. Maybe there's a couple of spells that are the exceptions but I've not yet heard what they are and what's amazing about them.

So any opportunity to increase your number of casters of any sort is directly related to the number of spells you can have going in a battle. Are there truly no useful low level spells on the list open to an EK then?

[pwykersotz]

So help me in 5E if your casters are buffing you they aren't casters anymore while doing it because you with little exception only can have 1 spell at a time going thanks to Duration:Concentration. Seems to me that's quite the opportunity cost especially for arcanes. Maybe there's a couple of spells that are the exceptions but I've not yet heard what they are and what's amazing about them.

So any opportunity to increase your number of casters of any sort is directly related to the number of spells you can have going in a battle. Are there truly no useful low level spells on the list open to an EK then?

There are plenty. Remember, right out of the gate one of them is any school. One of them is Shield (seriously, always take this one). Cantrips can include range supplement for melee brutes like Fire Bolt, battlefield control with an attack bonus like Shocking Grasp, or True Strike and Blade Ward. I also like taking Find Familiar for my spare spell...the eyes in the sky for a Raven or Owl is super handy.

[Surrealistik]

The benefits provided by the good EK spells are mainly defensive; essentially you trade lots of extra damage/accuracy with nice riders all day (Battlemaster), for some defensive capabilities (and utility via the 'free picks') a couple of times a day, or in the case of the Gish, you trade lots of spell versatility and some truly powerful synergies (like Darkness + Devil Sight) for an extra attack and some fighter features.

So while straight EK can situationally be better than either of its alternatives, on the whole and by and large, I don't see that really being the case.

EDIT: The ability to take three spells from any school during the progression is a welcome change from the Alpha which helps this subpath a lot.

[Tengu_temp]

EK is the martial end of the Gish range, nothing wrong with it. Especially as the feat list expands, it gives you very sexy access to those feats. EK is not a trap crap, so shut it. It doesn't get all the bells and whistles that the other two archtypes get, but it VERY much gets high access as the game expands, with new spells and feats. If someone focuses more on sword play then on magic, then it makes perfect logic, that they won't be as good with magic.


Not everything is about optimization folks.

You win the prize for the least useful, and least polite, response in this thread.

[rlc]

can i be a late entrant?

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5843475456/h87C18A13/

[Soras Teva Gee]

The benefits provided by the good EK spells are mainly defensive; essentially you trade lots of extra damage/accuracy with nice riders all day (Battlemaster), for some defensive capabilities (and utility via the 'free picks') a couple of times a day, or in the case of the Gish, you trade lots of spell versatility and some truly powerful synergies (like Darkness + Devil Sight) for an extra attack and some fighter features.

So while straight EK can situationally be better than either of its alternatives, on the whole and by and large, I don't see that really being the case.

EDIT: The ability to take three spells from any school during the progression is a welcome change from the Alpha which helps this subpath a lot.

Seems to me that EK is only a "trap" then in that it is nominally less efficient then the Battlemaster given certain assumptions on what constitutes normal play.

Now that might be true, but only the most efficient it is a pretty limited scope. Does the EK actually cease to pull its weight in the party? Like say you should have picked Champion instead?

(Champion seems like a better place for "trap" in that it just hits things with a sword, but is also pretty evidently there to be newbie/paper-work friendly which has a virture not captured well by numbers)

[Lord Raziere]

The point of Eldritch Knight is to both cast spells and fight with a sword without going through complicated multi-classing. Its just executed poorly by limiting it to only Evocation and Abjuration rather than picking any two schools you want as your specializations.

[SaintRidley]

It's a nice, simple gish in a can that focuses more on the martial than the magic. There's no one way to play a gish, and this is honestly the closest to my preferred style of gish. I'd play one who uses his spells for ranged fighting (rather than buy gear for ranged weapons and spend points on Dex - go heavy armor and leave Dex low), and smashes face directly. And sometimes choosing to smash face and throw some cantrips out at more distant threats simultaneously.

[MadBear]

You win the prize for the least useful, and least polite, response in this thread.

3rd prize actually, you take 1st, and I'm sure I now take 2nd ;-P

[obryn]

Let's not forget that your secondary stat is now Intelligence as opposed to Constitution or Dexterity, and Intelligence is pretty worthless otherwise.

I am pretty underwhelmed by the Eldritch Knight. How's about making them more along the lines of a Paladin or Ranger, with a dedicated spell list focused on spellswording? That'd be an interesting and entertaining approach to the concept; certainly better than just mushing two classes together.

I mean, it's still a better choice than the Champion, but it looks even more lackluster than the tepid Battlemaster.

[Human Paragon 3]

I'd like to just throw in the fact that multiclassing is an optional variant in 5e, and not every table will even allow it. It is in the section on optional character tools, like feats. Thus, EK gives the ability to play a fighter/mage by default. I'm glad it's included. It looks fun to play and has advantages over Champion and Battle Master (improved invisibility? Fireball? True Strike?). It's pretty disingenuous to call it a "trap."

[rlc]

this is the internet. disingenuous is the name of the game.

[Surrealistik]

Let's not forget that your secondary stat is now Intelligence as opposed to Constitution or Dexterity, and Intelligence is pretty worthless otherwise.

I am pretty underwhelmed by the Eldritch Knight. How's about making them more along the lines of a Paladin or Ranger, with a dedicated spell list focused on spellswording? That'd be an interesting and entertaining approach to the concept; certainly better than just mushing two classes together.

I mean, it's still a better choice than the Champion, but it looks even more lackluster than the tepid Battlemaster.

Fair enough, I'll give it that, Champion is horribad (tbh, I actually don't mind the Battlemaster too much because of its spike damage and off-turn attacking potential, and Menacing Strike is actually pretty balling), but if you're gonna Gish, you can definitely do _much_ better in a nutshell.

I suppose I can see it being used in the minority of games that forbid multiclassing because you pretty much have no alternative.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Let's not forget that your secondary stat is now Intelligence as opposed to Constitution or Dexterity, and Intelligence is pretty worthless otherwise.

I am pretty underwhelmed by the Eldritch Knight. How's about making them more along the lines of a Paladin or Ranger, with a dedicated spell list focused on spellswording? That'd be an interesting and entertaining approach to the concept; certainly better than just mushing two classes together.

I mean, it's still a better choice than the Champion, but it looks even more lackluster than the tepid Battlemaster.

Stop and ask yourself whether you are talking about a Fighter build... or full fledged class in its own right?

Named maybe "Swordmage" or "Magus" or "Swordsage" something that say has more spell casting but has fewer attacks, no Fighting Style, no Action Surge, no Second Wind, etc? And has a bunch of spells that wouldn't fit in the PHB page limit because melee magic is a bit niche. It seems passingly likely something like that will be offered in a future splat. Remember the EK essentially sacrifices nothing unless you feel the BM's maneuvers totally blow his spell list out of the water, but you evidently don't since you don't like those either.

Begs what are you expecting in general perhaps?

[obryn]

Stop and ask yourself whether you are talking about a Fighter build... or full fledged class in its own right?

Named maybe "Swordmage" or "Magus" or "Swordsage" something that say has more spell casting but has fewer attacks, no Fighting Style, no Action Surge, no Second Wind, etc? And has a bunch of spells that wouldn't fit in the PHB page limit because melee magic is a bit niche. It seems passingly likely something like that will be offered in a future splat. Remember the EK essentially sacrifices nothing unless you feel the BM's maneuvers totally blow his spell list out of the water, but you evidently don't since you don't like those either.

Begs what are you expecting in general perhaps?
With the Paladin/Ranger comparison I thought I was pretty explicitly talking about a full class. :smallsmile: I think that's the best (probably only) way to do the concept justice.

And no, you're right, the Battlemaster's maneuvers really don't blow me away. Except, as Surrealistik mentioned, Menacing Strike, which is okay except for the double-gate issue of hit attack + fail save.

[Sartharina]

I like the Eldritch Knight, aside from the limitation on spell schools. I'd prefer them to have a choice of two wizard schools.

It's a nice Fighter that trades a little bit of martial versatility(Battlemaster) or power(Champion) for a little bit of Arcane Versatility or Power. The Fighter's chassis is strong enough, and the diveristy of ability . Furthermore - an EK can Attack and cast a spell in the same round once per encounter out the door thanks to Action Surge, and can still Attack and cast a Bonus Action spell in the same round.

No, it's not as good a caster as a full caster, or Half-caster like the Ranger and Paladin (Who only get two attacks and five feats, instead of four attacks and seven feats). But it's a better caster than a Battlemaster or Champion Fighter, without being significantly less of a Fighter than either of those.

Also - A multiclass Fighter/Wizard misses out on at least two feats that a full EK gets - and might have fewer feats than a full caster.

[Surrealistik]

With the Paladin/Ranger comparison I thought I was pretty explicitly talking about a full class. :smallsmile: I think that's the best (probably only) way to do the concept justice.

And no, you're right, the Battlemaster's maneuvers really don't blow me away. Except, as Surrealistik mentioned, Menacing Strike, which is okay except for the double-gate issue of hit attack + fail save.

Menacing Strike and Riposte are both excellent (again, consistent off-turn attacks are strong, and this triggers often when paired with Menacing which you want to use anyways) and Tripping is good most of the time (trip, then dogpile with advantage). The rest is kinda meh, or is situational.

I also disagree that hitting is problematic, and in practice isn't really much of a gate when you have 3-4 attacks (4-5 when dual wielding) with which to land a hit, Trip Attack can grant advantage, and you only blow the Expertise dice on landing a hit. Further, once a target is frightened, it suffers from disadvantage to its saving throws, so you can chain Menacing, and have a significantly improved chance to land/trigger stuff like Trip and Riposte (the formermost of which improves your chance of hitting period).

I don't get 'Relentless' though, it's laughably weak, straight up; it strikes me as an almost literal joke feature.

[Person_Man]

What the Eldritch Knight gets is comparable to what the other Fighter Archetypes get. The issue is that the Fighter and its Archetypes just aren't very good at mid-high levels. The Fighter is solid for the first 6 levels or so, and then starts to fall behind compared to other classes at level 7+.

This could be solved a bunch of different ways. I think the easiest way is to just give the Fighter the Champion Archetype abilities for free, in addition to the Eldritch Knight or Battle Master Archetype abilities. That way their raw numbers are high enough to keep them useful, even if they're not particularly powerful or flexible. Alternatively, you could give them more Action Surge, Second Wind, and Indomitable. Or you could just play a Paladin and ask your DM for access to additional spells.

[Millennium]

The point of the Eldritch Knight is for people who want to study magic and combat. If you just want to be Goku, there are other options.

[EvilAnagram]

Honestly, I was a bit underwhelmed with the class' available spells at first, but I'm honestly excited to play it. I rolled up an NPC Eldritch Knight to babysit a couple newer players and (eventually) get killed at a dramatically appropriate moment. The class works pretty well, and I love the concept. A Fighter who can throw out damage or protect herself and her allies is a lot of fun.

In fact, my biggest problem with this class is the limited number of decent abjuration spells. I played a shielding swordmage for a long time in 4e, and I like to interrupt enemy attacks and throw shields onto my allies. It's a lot of fun messing with the DM's plans, and I wish there were more options for this. Some physical spells (Flaming Sword) would be nice, too, but it's still a fun class to play.

[Tengu_temp]

After checking the spell list, I reached the conclusion that between being able to cast Blade Ward and then attack and having access to Shield, Eldritch Knight is a pretty damn effective tank. Probably the best tank from all fighters.



I don't get 'Relentless' though, it's laughably weak, straight up; it strikes me as an almost literal joke feature.

Never running out of Superiority Dice is laughably weak?

[obryn]

Never running out of Superiority Dice is laughably weak?
You might be looking at an old version.

Now you get 1 back when you roll initiative. :smallsigh:

[hawklost]

Don't forget, the EK does have 4 spells from any of the Wizards lists. He gets them at 3,8,14,20 (which means he has a lvl 1,2,3,4 of whatever Wizard spells). heck, by the wording, he could at lvl 20 have 3 lvl 3 Wizard spells of any type and a lvl 4, if he decided to 'change out' his lower level spells at 16 and 19 (personally do not recommend 3 3rd though.)

His potential for fighting is pretty good if he uses his spells to give him a leg up instead of trying to directly outdamage a Wizard with them. He could have a spell like Blindness/Deafness (2nd). after lvl 10 have a decent chance of even succeeding against a Wizards Wis save since he could strike them once to cause Disadvantage and then next turn cast the spell on them. He could use Greater Invisibility to be harder to hit. Use Blink to protect himself. There are lots of combos he can do with his spells and his attacks.

[EvilAnagram]

Never running out of Superiority Dice is laughably weak?

It's not really, "never running out of Superiority Dice," though. It's, "I can do one kind-of-cool thing and then I'm back to being an underpowered fighter for the rest of this fight." The lack of superiority dice is the main reason why the Battle Master is so laughably weak compared to the Warlord. The most basic Warlord feature - Commander's Strike - has such limited use as to be a non-factor in most battles.

[Tengu_temp]

You might be looking at an old version.

Now you get 1 back when you roll initiative. :smallsigh:

Oh damnit, I thought it's at the start of every turn, not at the start of every combat. That would actually make it worthwhile... and I get the feeling that this might've actually be the intention behind this ability, but the guy who wrote Battlemaster didn't coordinate with the one who made the combat rules and they dun goofed.

[EvilAnagram]

Oh damnit, I thought it's at the start of every turn, not at the start of every combat. That would actually make it worthwhile... and I get the feeling that this might've actually be the intention behind this ability, but the guy who wrote Battlemaster didn't coordinate with the one who made the combat rules and they dun goofed.

It actually mirrors the abilities for other classes (gain x number of points back if you start battle with 0), so they apparently genuinely thought that Warlord fans really just wanted a Fighter who could occasionally do something kind of cool.

[da_chicken]

Oh damnit, I thought it's at the start of every turn, not at the start of every combat. That would actually make it worthwhile... and I get the feeling that this might've actually be the intention behind this ability, but the guy who wrote Battlemaster didn't coordinate with the one who made the combat rules and they dun goofed.

That's how it was originally written in the playtest. That's why it looks like it should be that way. Originally it said something along the lines of "at the beginning of your turn if you have no superiority dice, you gain two superiority dice." They could've changed it to one superiority die every turn. Or one every other turn. Or all your dice at the start of a combat. But nope. You get just one.

[Soras Teva Gee]

That's how it was originally written in the playtest. That's why it looks like it should be that way. Originally it said something along the lines of "at the beginning of your turn if you have no superiority dice, you gain two superiority dice." They could've changed it to one superiority die every turn. Or one every other turn. Or all your dice at the start of a combat. But nope. You get just one.

Sounds like it conflicts with a basic trade off principle. Get swanky abilities... but they run out on occasion.

Also depending on the exact wording I can see some player arguing that since they get one every round, they always get 10 per minute thus basically always start with a full pool.

[hawklost]

Sounds like it conflicts with a basic trade off principle. Get swanky abilities... but they run out on occasion.

Also depending on the exact wording I can see some player arguing that since they get one every round, they always get 10 per minute thus basically always start with a full pool.

lvl 15 power only gives you one at the start of initiative, very specific on Initiative in the wording. Since Initiative only occurs in very specific circumstances (DM call) then they don't get all of them back between combats unless they take a short/long rest.

[Gnomes2169]

lvl 15 power only gives you one at the start of initiative, very specific on Initiative in the wording. Since Initiative only occurs in very specific circumstances (DM call) then they don't get all of them back between combats unless they take a short/long rest.

Or maybe they are encouraging you to spar in between encounters? Just force a few init rolls by punching your twiggy caster in his stupid smug face, and... :P

[andhaira]

After checking the spell list, I reached the conclusion that between being able to cast Blade Ward and then attack and having access to Shield, Eldritch Knight is a pretty damn effective tank. Probably the best tank from all fighters.



Never running out of Superiority Dice is laughably weak?

Casting Blade Ward then attacking is much weaker than straight up attacking with 4 attacks.

[hawklost]

Casting Blade Ward then attacking is much weaker than straight up attacking with 4 attacks.

Yes, in that case the Fighter is choosing to give up attacks for more defense effectively. Not the most optimum choice unless you find an enemy who has loads of HP and strong strikes compared to the party. Then the Fighter standing in a spot to block him while giving himself 1/2 damage would be a great choice.

Or just using other spells that could block it, but I will assume the party wants to kill it as well.

[Gnomes2169]

Casting Blade Ward then attacking is much weaker than straight up attacking with 4 attacks.

Unless you are in the muddle of a horde, have the 5e power attack+cleave feat, and sort of want to live until next round. (With the feat and a two handed weapon, you should be making mince meat out of most of the creatures around you. On top of that, I am certain that there are concentration spells that increase the damage of your attacks or the number of attacks you can make (see, haste).)

Also, just a question, but... Do you want to fight a dragon in melee without any protection but some piece of metal/ leather that the dragon eats all day, every day? Blade Ward is amazing for survivability, and if you pick up the right feats makes you an amazing tank. (5e cleave as mentioned, the "retaliate against an ally being attacked" feat, the "shoot someone who hits me in the face with a cantrip" feat, etc, etc all add to your ability to not only encourage enemies to attack you, but to punish them for doing so. Basically forcing a "no win" situation on the targets you don't particularly like.)

[EvilAnagram]

Or maybe they are encouraging you to spar in between encounters? Just force a few init rolls by punching your twiggy caster in his stupid smug face, and... :P

It only happens when you start with zero Superiority Dice and roll Initiative. It's very clear, with no wiggle room whatsoever. If you use all of your dice before resting, you're going to be limited to one die per encounter until you rest up, basically eliminating everything that distinguishes a Battle Master from any other Fighter, save that he can't keep up with a Champion.

[Tengu_temp]

Casting Blade Ward then attacking is much weaker than straight up attacking with 4 attacks.

Yeah, but you usually don't start the game at level 20. It's often better than attacking twice, if a lot of enemies are focusing on you. It's situational.

[Gnomes2169]

Aaaaand the joking post was taken seriously.

http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3704&d=1348366883

Ffr, I do and did know that the ability only procs when you have no superiority dice... However, that leads to fewer wizards being punched in their stupid smug faces. So I have to conveniently ignore this fact... :P

[Surrealistik]

After checking the spell list, I reached the conclusion that between being able to cast Blade Ward and then attack and having access to Shield, Eldritch Knight is a pretty damn effective tank. Probably the best tank from all fighters.

The problem with this approach is that your damage output both ends up being laughably anemic _and_ you become a completely undesirable target which means the monsters will just completely disregard you to beat on your party members (unless they're zombie dumb), thereby making your character an ineffective party tank, unless the idea is simply to be as survivable as possible (in which case you're either in a desperate situation, or you want to play Barbarian with Bear Totem enhanced rage since it does the whole "I'm the Juggernaut bitch!" thing better).

Also while consistently applicable at first, the situational nature of Blade Ward's resistances will become painfully apparent as the CRs increase and damage sources/types you face begin diversifying.

In short, great trick early on in your career that becomes increasingly situational to the point where it won't be much of a thing.

[Human Paragon 3]

The problem with this approach is that your damage output both ends up being laughably anemic _and_ you become a completely undesirable target which means the monsters will just completely disregard you to beat on your party members (unless they're zombie dumb), thereby making your character an ineffective party tank, unless the idea is simply to be as survivable as possible (in which case you're either in a desperate situation, or you want to play Barbarian with Bear Totem enhanced rage since it does the whole "I'm the Juggernaut bitch!" thing better).

Also while consistently applicable at first, the situational nature of Blade Ward's resistances will become painfully apparent as the CRs increase and damage sources/types you face begin diversifying.

In short, great trick early on in your career that becomes increasingly situational to the point where it won't be much of a thing.

But EK gets 7 feats that it can use to keep enemies locked down within 5' of it. There's also nothing forcing EK to use blade ward every turn. He can keep enemies locked down while his allies snipe them, then switch to a hasted action surge full attack when it seems opportune.

[Surrealistik]

He gets 1 reaction that is mutually exclusive with Shield, and can only arrest the movement of one monster at most.

[obryn]

Sounds like it conflicts with a basic trade off principle. Get swanky abilities... but they run out on occasion.
It's the degree of swank combined with how fast they run out that's the problem.

[BRC]

I think the general idea is that the party is supposed to take a "Short Rest" between encounters, so "Refreshes after a Short Rest" becomes the new "per encounter" and "Refreshes after a Long Rest" becomes the new "Per Day". The Battlemaster's superiority dice are balanced so that you have a full pool at the start of all major encounters.
Of course, that may not be practical, especially if the rest of the party dosn't have "Refreshes after short rest" abilities. The Plot may dictate that it's better to deprive the Battlemaster of their Cool Stuff than to have the party sit around for an hour.

Then again, Short Rests are new to DnD, so we'll have to see how well they work. I don't know about 4e, but in 3.5 you generally didn't stop for more than a few minutes unless you were taking an 8-hour rest to replenish spells and per day abilities. It's possible that in 4e, Short Rests will become part of the standard adventuring day. Everybody takes a Short Rest, and those that don't need to go scouting or something.

[obryn]

I think the general idea is that the party is supposed to take a "Short Rest" between encounters, so "Refreshes after a Short Rest" becomes the new "per encounter" and "Refreshes after a Long Rest" becomes the new "Per Day". The Battlemaster's superiority dice are balanced so that you have a full pool at the start of all major encounters.
Of course, that may not be practical, especially if the rest of the party dosn't have "Refreshes after short rest" abilities. The Plot may dictate that it's better to deprive the Battlemaster of their Cool Stuff than to have the party sit around for an hour.

Then again, Short Rests are new to DnD, so we'll have to see how well they work. I don't know about 4e, but in 3.5 you generally didn't stop for more than a few minutes unless you were taking an 8-hour rest to replenish spells and per day abilities. It's possible that in 4e, Short Rests will become part of the standard adventuring day. Everybody takes a Short Rest, and those that don't need to go scouting or something.
In 4e, short rests were 5 minutes, and were indeed the default between encounters. In 4e terms, if you don't get a short rest, you're still basically in the same encounter as before.

In 5e, they specifically (for whatever reason) determined there are no "encounter" abilities, so a short rest is now an hour. This was specifically done so you don't have them available every single encounter, and need to fall back on uninspiring 'basic' attacks. ("Oh no! My players are using their encounter abilities every encounter! How can we stop this!?") This design intent is illustrated by the tepid "capstone" abilities for both the Battlemaster and Monk, giving them back a fraction of their normal resources.

My gut feeling tells me an hour is way too long for a short rest, but I haven't seen this resource management in action yet specifically within the 5e encounter economy. My reasoning is basically...

Wizard Wanda has 16 'cool thing' tokens she can use at any point during a day, plus a handful of 'cool thing' tokens she can get back when she rests an hour.
Fighter Fred has 4 'cool thing' tokens that refresh every time he rests for an hour.

If you get one short rest over the day - reasonable, given its hour duration - Wanda gets 20 'cool things', and Fred gets 8. At two short rests, it's 20 and 12. Now, Fred's capacity to deal damage without 'cool things' is generally greater than Wanda's, but at the same time, Wanda's 'cool things' are generally much 'cooler,' so that balances out kinda. But at the end of the day, it's unlikely there will ever be enough rests for Fred to do as much 'cool stuff' over the course of a day.

Monks, OTOH, start out starved but seem to get plenty of 'cool thing' tokens by mid-levels. Again, I'd need to see it in play, but most of their best abilities cost only 1 ki.

[Doug Lampert]

I think the general idea is that the party is supposed to take a "Short Rest" between encounters, so "Refreshes after a Short Rest" becomes the new "per encounter" and "Refreshes after a Long Rest" becomes the new "Per Day". The Battlemaster's superiority dice are balanced so that you have a full pool at the start of all major encounters.
Of course, that may not be practical, especially if the rest of the party dosn't have "Refreshes after short rest" abilities. The Plot may dictate that it's better to deprive the Battlemaster of their Cool Stuff than to have the party sit around for an hour.

Then again, Short Rests are new to DnD, so we'll have to see how well they work. I don't know about 4e, but in 3.5 you generally didn't stop for more than a few minutes unless you were taking an 8-hour rest to replenish spells and per day abilities. It's possible that in 4e, Short Rests will become part of the standard adventuring day. Everybody takes a Short Rest, and those that don't need to go scouting or something.
Nope, they were added in fourth edition, where they took 5 minutes and were routine.

The 1 hour short rest is a pretty clear statement that they DON'T want the 4th edition, short rest powers == encounter powers.

[BRC]

Nope, they were added in fourth edition, where they took 5 minutes and were routine.

The 1 hour short rest is a pretty clear statement that they DON'T want the 4th edition, short rest powers == encounter powers.

Didn't play much 4e, I was under the impression that they just called them "Encounter Powers".

And a 5 minute Short Rest is substantially different from a 1 hour Short Rest in terms of it's implications.


A five minute short rest is "We are done with that encounter, and are no longer in danger"

a One Hour short rest is "We don't have anything time-sensitive we need to worry about, but are not yet done with this adventuring day". It's a new way to divide up the day, and may be a greater investment of resources depending on your DM. (Your standard issue Dungeon Crawl, for example, the occupants of the dungeon might not be nice enough to allow the invading adventurers to rest for an hour after a tough fight)

Personally, with the exception of deliberately simple classes (Like the Champion Fighter, designed so that people unfamiliar with the rules can have a viable build that uses only the most basic mechanics), characters should only be deprived of their Cool Stuff under extreme circumstances. I think Battlemasters get four Superiority Dice to start with? Generally Combats last about four rounds, so they get to do at least one Cool Thing a round.
Which is good if you're assuming they start each encounter with a full pool.

I'm playing a Battlemaster in a campaign we're starting, so I'll see how it works out. But I could easily see Battlemasters losing all their Cool Stuff way too quickly and becoming the annoying "GUYS CAN WE REST FOR AN HOUR SO I CAN BE USEFUL NEXT COMBAT!" characters.

[Soras Teva Gee]

lvl 15 power only gives you one at the start of initiative, very specific on Initiative in the wording. Since Initiative only occurs in very specific circumstances (DM call) then they don't get all of them back between combats unless they take a short/long rest.

I was referring to the suggestion that it should instead be "at the start of the round" pointing out the problems such a mode could have unless written particularly carefully.


I think the general idea is that the party is supposed to take a "Short Rest" between encounters, so "Refreshes after a Short Rest" becomes the new "per encounter" and "Refreshes after a Long Rest" becomes the new "Per Day". The Battlemaster's superiority dice are balanced so that you have a full pool at the start of all major encounters.
Of course, that may not be practical, especially if the rest of the party dosn't have "Refreshes after short rest" abilities. The Plot may dictate that it's better to deprive the Battlemaster of their Cool Stuff than to have the party sit around for an hour.

Then again, Short Rests are new to DnD, so we'll have to see how well they work. I don't know about 4e, but in 3.5 you generally didn't stop for more than a few minutes unless you were taking an 8-hour rest to replenish spells and per day abilities. It's possible that in 4e, Short Rests will become part of the standard adventuring day. Everybody takes a Short Rest, and those that don't need to go scouting or something.

Yeah I think the intent is to allow some resources to be recovered on a short 'believable' rests in dangerous circumstance and thus discourage the old sleeping-in-the-dungeon thing because you have another option. But unlike 'per encounter' still allows the DM to exhaust you with say fights in quick succession if they so feel like it and discourage simply going nova every encounter.

That will depend on their being just enough abilities to take advantage of it though.

[BRC]

I was referring to the suggestion that it should instead be "at the start of the round" pointing out the problems such a mode could have unless written particularly carefully.



Yeah I think the intent is to allow some resources to be recovered on a short 'believable' rests in dangerous circumstance and thus discourage the old sleeping-in-the-dungeon thing because you have another option. But unlike 'per encounter' still allows the DM to exhaust you with say fights in quick succession if they so feel like it and discourage simply going nova every encounter.

That will depend on their being just enough abilities to take advantage of it though.

For Battlemasters specifically, it will also require them to be fun enough without their Maneuvers to let players hold on to their superiority dice without feeling bored by the cycle of "I move into melee range and attack" every round.

[Soras Teva Gee]

For Battlemasters specifically, it will also require them to be fun enough without their Maneuvers to let players hold on to their superiority dice without feeling bored by the cycle of "I move into melee range and attack" every round.

Well that's just it...its not every round. You have other options (superiority dice) they just are finite in number. Kinda like most abilities worth having tend to be.

Also the extra attacks (which you get more of built right in) now combined with full movement open up a lot more options even for vanilla basic attacks then there have been before.

And dare I suggest that 4E giving everybody at-will fancy named abilities ultimately didn't work out as well as hoped, so perhaps "I attack X" was never as crucially boring as claimed? Or alternately maybe somebody has to be boring for all the special stuff to seem special?

[obryn]

And dare I suggest that 4E giving everybody at-will fancy named abilities ultimately didn't work out as well as hoped, so perhaps "I attack X" was never as crucially boring as claimed? Or alternately maybe somebody has to be boring for all the special stuff to seem special?
No, of all the things people criticize about 4e, "The 4e Fighter sucked" is rarely one of them.

And I disagree vehemently about the last sentence, there. No class should be boring.

[EvilAnagram]

No, of all the things people criticize about 4e, "The 4e Fighter sucked" is rarely one of them.

And I disagree vehemently about the last sentence, there. No class should be boring.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. You shouldn't spice up some classes while making it boring for other people to play. If you like running up to things and attacking them, there are classes that fit that play style. Same with players who like to shoot fireballs, sneak around, play with animals, and control the battlefield.

The problem with the Battle Master is that its abilities naturally attract the type of player who enjoys tactical thinking and battlefield control. Unfortunately, the extremely limited dice pool means the players who pick a Battle Master will inevitably have to spend some encounters running up to things and attacking them. This is just bad design.

[hawklost]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. You shouldn't spice up some classes while making it boring for other people to play. If you like running up to things and attacking them, there are classes that fit that play style. Same with players who like to shoot fireballs, sneak around, play with animals, and control the battlefield.

The problem with the Battle Master is that its abilities naturally attract the type of player who enjoys tactical thinking and battlefield control. Unfortunately, the extremely limited dice pool means the players who pick a Battle Master will inevitably have to spend some encounters running up to things and attacking them. This is just bad design.

Actually, it isn't exactly bad design. The person who enjoys tactical thinking will now have to... tactically use his abilities! Its a bonus to him not a negative. Now, if all he wants to do is be able to throw around effects indefinitely to control the field then yes, he loses out.

[obryn]

Actually, it isn't exactly bad design. The person who enjoys tactical thinking will now have to... tactically use his abilities! Its a bonus to him not a negative. Now, if all he wants to do is be able to throw around effects indefinitely to control the field then yes, he loses out.
This isn't an interesting sort of resource management, though, IMO. It's not "pick the best of these four options for the situation," it's "pick an option or just attack, because you don't want to pick too many options lest you run out."

By this argument, a Wizard with only four spells is more tactically interesting than one with 20. I'm just not seeing it.

[BRC]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. You shouldn't spice up some classes while making it boring for other people to play. If you like running up to things and attacking them, there are classes that fit that play style. Same with players who like to shoot fireballs, sneak around, play with animals, and control the battlefield.

The problem with the Battle Master is that its abilities naturally attract the type of player who enjoys tactical thinking and battlefield control. Unfortunately, the extremely limited dice pool means the players who pick a Battle Master will inevitably have to spend some encounters running up to things and attacking them. This is just bad design.
Not really. The Battlemaster is supposed to be a more strategic character, and resource management is part of strategy. "Running up and attacking" isn't a bad thing, in fact it's core gameplay.
The problem is that Battlemasters sacrifice being good at running up and attacking (Compared to Champions) in exchange for Cool Stuff, and the Superiority Dice pool may be too limited to let them properly use that Cool Stuff.

The issue becomes if battles drag on long enough that the Battlemaster quickly runs out of options.

Personally, I think it would be nice if there was some way for battlemasters to regain superiority dice mid-battle.

[Human Paragon 3]

Personally, I think it would be nice if there was some way for battlemasters to regain superiority dice mid-battle.

Maybe if they could take an action to gesture wildly and center themselves like swordsages.

Or if they got 2 dice back when they spent their second wind.

[Muenster Man]

I think it would be awesome if they replenished 1 die each time they rolled for initiative.

[obryn]

Personally, I think it would be nice if there was some way for battlemasters to regain superiority dice mid-battle.
A really early playtest let them, IIRC, recover all their dice by spending an action. Or maybe I just dreamed that.

Anyway, what's a good exchange rate? I think 1 per action is too expensive. Is 1 per sacrificed attack too cheap?

Maybe base it on hitting or missing? Gain one back every time you miss (or maybe hit) a target?

[BRC]

Maybe if they could take an action to gesture wildly and center themselves like swordsages.

Or if they got 2 dice back when they spent their second wind.

Personally, I would go with some way that keeps them in the fight. They have to make an attack roll at a penalty to study their opponent's defenses, or do something showy (like deliberately cutting off a lock of their opponent's hair) to psyche themselves up again.

[Giant2005]

With their spell of any school at level 8, an EK can learn Blur and as an Abjuration spell, they can learn Shield and the combination of those spells makes the EK virtually untouchable in combat. None of the other fighter variants can come close to that level of power. If they are Dex based, they could also learn Mage Armor which will give a higher AC than Platemail with a Dex of 20.
With a shield, 20 Dex, Mage Armor and the Shield spell, you are looking at an AC of 25 and all attacks against them have disadvantage. They are almost indestructible.

If you are thinking you could do the same thing with a gish and not have to use EK, you are still better off using the EK. By taking a single level of Wizard, you are removing the EK's biggest weakness in its limited spell schools. The Wizard's spellbook means they could learn spells from any school if they were able to find/buy scrolls. By taking more than a single level of Wizard, they can even exmpand their spellcasting abilities without losing much of anything - take a 12 EK/8 Wiz for example. It would have 6 feats/ability increases, 3 attacks, the ability to cast spells up to 6th level and your choice of Wizard schools, some of which give some pretty amazing bonuses for a Fighter type such as the Abjuration school's Arcane Ward or the Enchantment School's Instinctive Charm.

The point of EKs is that they are pretty much the most powerful class in the game.

[hawklost]

With their spell of any school at level 8, an EK can learn Blur and as an Abjuration spell, they can learn Shield and the combination of those spells makes the EK virtually untouchable in combat. None of the other fighter variants can come close to that level of power. If they are Dex based, they could also learn Mage Armor which will give a higher AC than Platemail with a Dex of 20.
With a shield, 20 Dex, Mage Armor and the Shield spell, you are looking at an AC of 25 and all attacks against them have disadvantage. They are almost indestructible.

If you are thinking you could do the same thing with a gish and not have to use EK, you are still better off using the EK. By taking a single level of Wizard, you are removing the EK's biggest weakness in its limited spell schools. The Wizard's spellbook means they could learn spells from any school if they were able to find/buy scrolls. By taking more than a single level of Wizard, they can even exmpand their spellcasting abilities without losing much of anything - take a 12 EK/8 Wiz for example. It would have 6 feats/ability increases, 3 attacks, the ability to cast spells up to 6th level and your choice of Wizard schools, some of which give some pretty amazing bonuses for a Fighter type such as the Abjuration school's Arcane Ward or the Enchantment School's Instinctive Charm.

The point of EKs is that they are pretty much the most powerful class in the game.


Your math is wrong. Plate gives AC of 18. Mage Armor gives AC of 13+Dex, which would be 18. Note also that you have a very limited number of spells per day as a EK, so using one up for Mage Armor does not make sense much since you can get the same thing without using the slot.

If you are combining a EK with someone else, you kinda defeat the claim of 'this is the strongest class'.

The EK is powerful for a limited time, then they are pretty much down to a basic Fighter. Have him face between 2-10 encounters randomly in a day and see how how stacks up to the Champion or other classes. The reason for the random difference is that now he has to decide when to use up all his spells and when not to, you don't want anyone to know how much combat they will have left in a day otherwise they plan exactly for it.

[Giant2005]

Your math is wrong. Plate gives AC of 18. Mage Armor gives AC of 13+Dex, which would be 18. Note also that you have a very limited number of spells per day as a EK, so using one up for Mage Armor does not make sense much since you can get the same thing without using the slot.

If you are combining a EK with someone else, you kinda defeat the claim of 'this is the strongest class'.

The EK is powerful for a limited time, then they are pretty much down to a basic Fighter. Have him face between 2-10 encounters randomly in a day and see how how stacks up to the Champion or other classes. The reason for the random difference is that now he has to decide when to use up all his spells and when not to, you don't want anyone to know how much combat they will have left in a day otherwise they plan exactly for it.

You are right about Plate being as good as Mage Armor - I think I just remembered Mage Armor being better because I am incredibly cheap and the price of Plate deterred me.
The reason I mentioned the Gish is because the EK does it better. A 12 Fighter of any other variety /8 Wizard would only be able to cast level 4 spells whereas the EK can cast level 6 and obviously a whole lot more of them. You could compensate with another Fighter class by dropping even more Fighter levels but at that point, you are pretty much giving up the advantages that the Fighter has anyway and are probably better off going for a Paladin/Sorc gish. The EK is pretty much the only way to combine the Fighter and Wizard classes without giving up the strengths of both.

As for being nothing more than an average Fighter after you cast all of your spells... You are absolutely right. But unless they are spamming the Shield spell too much, they should have more than enough spell slots to endure several encounters. The only spell they really need to cast to be considered the best Fighter is Blur - anything else they are casting is just a bonus. Also, that same issue is much more compounded on what I consider to be the worst option for Fighters: The Battle Master. After 6 attacks, a Battle Master is just an ordinary fighter and those attacks could easily be expended in a single turn. There isn't even much of a reason to save them beyond that turn. A single casting of the Blur spell lasts 10 turns and they can cast it multiple times - their longevity is so far apart that it isn't even fair to compare them.

[Soras Teva Gee]

No, of all the things people criticize about 4e, "The 4e Fighter sucked" is rarely one of them.

And I disagree vehemently about the last sentence, there. No class should be boring.

Shame nobody played 4E, figuratively speaking.

Which was my actual point, it could be a magical perfect edition that does everything right and it matters not a dime. 4E didn't sell well enough or we'd not be having this conversation at all, not only did 3.5 maintain interest (consider this very forum) steadily, but spawned Pathfinder who's mere continued existence is a major problem for official D&D. Everything 4E did is higly suspect and at best did not prove a major selling point because nothing did.

Ergo by extension of all that... swinging around your sword suits most people just dandy.
I know because I'm one of them I don't need a game like D&D to try to jazz up swordfighting all that much, its too abstract and the specifics are what flavor text is for.
If I wanted bells and whistles I'd be playing BESM or something. Heck I like BESM, I just don't want to play it when I'm playing D&D.

I say boring because I have a way of liking "boring" on occasion. It could be a synonym for "streamlined" or "straightforward" or "simple" all of which I like and respect. More substantially for gaming, sometimes I don't want to have to keep track of as much crap like spells every day. Heck that's why I never ever play wizards, I'll play sorcerers so at least I can learn my spell list once and done. Everyone saying they don't want to be boring sounds to me more like wanting to be super special ultimate snowflakes of doom... gahh just give me a Drizzt clone any day at least now that's a classic rip off of a good character.

And know I haven't changed much on these points since 4E came out, I formulated them when ToB was published for 3.5 and was supposedly all the rage. Except for those of us it made want to vomit. I saw where that was going, and was proven right by 4E. Never bought a text of 4E, found Pathfinder, converted and predicted it would be doing well several years hence and 4E... well whaddaya know?

5E has already proven me right in the real world by its reversion to old methodology, "boring" basic attacks and all. Though might be too late for me I'm pretty tied to Pathfinder now but some of the things they've done with 5E rather impress me. If it proves popular enough to take it all back from Paizo I won't be holding a grudge.

[Tengu_temp]

That's a very long way to try to sell your personal dislike of ToB and 4e as some kind of objective truth.

Personally, I think the reason 4e didn't sell well is because it's not a very grognard-friendly game, and a lot of people who are not grognards switched to other systems ages ago, while grognards keep on playing DND and only DND.
(Also the fact that the battle system was sluggish and dry and everything took ages to kill didn't help.)

[Soras Teva Gee]

That's a very long way to try to sell your personal dislike of ToB and 4e as some kind of objective truth.

Personally, I think the reason 4e didn't sell well is because it's not a very grognard-friendly game, and a lot of people who are not grognards switched to other systems ages ago, while grognards keep on playing DND and only DND.
(Also the fact that the battle system was sluggish and dry and everything took ages to kill didn't help.)

If it doesn't sell it sooner or later doesn't exist, so the subjective majority rules by default and is the objective.

Because there is no other "objective" reality that matters to consumer products worth a dime, quite literally because this is not a charity but has to support at least a small number of people incomes. You could have the most perfectly designed game ever, if it doesn't sell your perfect creation doesn't keep the lights on and food in your stomach.

I might point out though that as grognard refers to those that prefer older editions well, you're essentially confirming my point because what were the grognards evidently happy enough with to keep on playing with? Basic attacks being basic attacks is one of them, because what does the Fighter and melee's in general do? Answer: hit things with a sword.

Of course why in particular that subjective majority decided differently is always a difficult question. Further complicated by the problem that different people might have different reasons so the net effect can cut both ways. However since the reality of not selling remains it means that no single point was strong enough to win out with the subjective majority... and the difficulty in verifying which points means you basically have to dump the entire system and only very selectively re-introduce things.

The only way to be sure is to try again and gamble that your new version will sell this time.

Of course since we have a nominally successful competitor you can go an look at what they did and did not do for some guidance too. Because what they did is well successful.

Of the uncountable ways they could of done things I think 5E Fighter as either BM or EK might eventually replace the Lore Warden (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/lore-warden) as my favorite version of the archetype.

[obryn]

Shame nobody played 4E, figuratively speaking.

Which was my actual point, it could be a magical perfect edition that does everything right and it matters not a dime. 4E didn't sell well enough or we'd not be having this conversation at all, not only did 3.5 maintain interest (consider this very forum) steadily, but spawned Pathfinder who's mere continued existence is a major problem for official D&D. Everything 4E did is higly suspect and at best did not prove a major selling point because nothing did.

Ergo by extension of all that... swinging around your sword suits most people just dandy.
I know because I'm one of them I don't need a game like D&D to try to jazz up swordfighting all that much, its too abstract and the specifics are what flavor text is for.
If I wanted bells and whistles I'd be playing BESM or something. Heck I like BESM, I just don't want to play it when I'm playing D&D.

I say boring because I have a way of liking "boring" on occasion. It could be a synonym for "streamlined" or "straightforward" or "simple" all of which I like and respect. More substantially for gaming, sometimes I don't want to have to keep track of as much crap like spells every day. Heck that's why I never ever play wizards, I'll play sorcerers so at least I can learn my spell list once and done. Everyone saying they don't want to be boring sounds to me more like wanting to be super special ultimate snowflakes of doom... gahh just give me a Drizzt clone any day at least now that's a classic rip off of a good character.

And know I haven't changed much on these points since 4E came out, I formulated them when ToB was published for 3.5 and was supposedly all the rage. Except for those of us it made want to vomit. I saw where that was going, and was proven right by 4E. Never bought a text of 4E, found Pathfinder, converted and predicted it would be doing well several years hence and 4E... well whaddaya know?

5E has already proven me right in the real world by its reversion to old methodology, "boring" basic attacks and all. Though might be too late for me I'm pretty tied to Pathfinder now but some of the things they've done with 5E rather impress me. If it proves popular enough to take it all back from Paizo I won't be holding a grudge.
That's nice?

[Soras Teva Gee]

That's nice?

Excellent you've admitted defeat. Good for you.

[obryn]

Excellent you've admitted defeat. Good for you.
I just don't really see the point in a crazy edition war right now. I get that you're super mad about 4e and Bo9S, but I don't see the relevance.

4e failed. 3e failed. 2e failed. 1e failed. RC/BECMI failed. This does not mean that any ideas found in any of these aren't worth consideration.

You like a "boring" Fighter. Cool. As I said, good for you, being your data point. I think there's plenty of design space in 5e for a boring fighter, a boring caster, an interesting fighter (more interesting than the fightlord) and an interesting caster (most of the rest).

[Sartharina]

Nope, they were added in fourth edition, where they took 5 minutes and were routine.

The 1 hour short rest is a pretty clear statement that they DON'T want the 4th edition, short rest powers == encounter powers.It's... difficult to explain, I think. I think they still expect 4 short rests per day, and two fights between short rests. One "Encounter" isn't just a single fight, but a small dungeon, stretch of dungeon, or social scene. "Storming the castle" was probably two Encounters in The Princess Bride. As was Escaping The Death Star in Star Wars (Getting to Princess Leia, with a Short Rest in and shortly after the Trash Compactor, followed by the escape)

I'd say "One hour is too Long", but then I remembered that's the minimum time you can 'wait' in any Elder Scrolls game. It's plenty of time in a dungeon, and only feels like a rush because it's so long compared to six-second rounds of combat.

[Soras Teva Gee]

4e failed. 3e failed. 2e failed. 1e failed. RC/BECMI failed. This does not mean that any ideas found in any of these aren't worth consideration.

3E is rather dubious given its alive with fairly token revisions as 3.5 and Pathfinder is Paizo's only product so must be doing something or Paizo has some really nice investors. All of them are completely compatible last I'd heard. And while there's considerable competition for a roughly static number of shelves I used to be able to by RPG books in normal books stores, its how I got my collection of 3.5 mostly and was something of a reference library for me. That faded only in 4E.

2E well I can't speak to the TSR-->WotC transition since I've never researched in detail what went into that. Also have to consider between AD&D and Basic though I understand its AD&D that's been continued under the unified banner since 3E which matches the book titles. Also it had original and revised in its ten year run that I can't speak to the differences of. Still a ten year run says the core probably did acceptably and there's tertiary items like continuing novel publishing through the time frame. Something that on the barometer of my local bookstores has only been eaten up only in recent years. Now GW and video game books have most of those shelves to the detriment of D&D and SW.

1E would seem rather obviously to have not failed as nobody plays the white boxed original set or Chainmail all that much I'm aware of and how did we get all those other editions then? And going from '77 to '89 might arguably be the peak of the product in terms of media impact (the moral panic, transmission to RPG videogames, etc) though sales have a lot of potential differences over that span of time.

Your definition of failure doesn't seem to mesh up with reality to me though. Perhaps you were speaking in subjective qualitative terms? Because if so I prefer VtM to all D&D as a game engine though many other WW products never did it, and its barely come back and hanging on with print-on-demand and online pdf sales. Not a booming success especially considering it even had a TV show at one point.


You like a "boring" Fighter. Cool. As I said, good for you, being your data point. I think there's plenty of design space in 5e for a boring fighter, a boring caster, an interesting fighter (more interesting than the fightlord) and an interesting caster (most of the rest).

Maybe.... but it comes after and should not conflict with putting out closest thing to a proven seller (the one with the most history) to hopefully keep the game afloat period.

Its not your first priority (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) which people demand or your second (the rest of the PHB classes) which people expect. Well maybe replace Warlock, but that another martial might show too much favoritism. Page count rears its ugly head somewhere especially if its got unique novel mechanics.

And it probably best not be patently better mechanically, at least not in fairly obvious ways. You also can't destroy the flavor of the game too much so completely novel concepts are dangerous too. Which imposes limits on the guy who's traditional shtick is hitting thinks really hard with a sword.

[obryn]

3E is rather dubious given its alive with fairly token revisions as 3.5 and Pathfinder is Paizo's only product so must be doing something or Paizo has some really nice investors. All of them are completely compatible last I'd heard. And while there's considerable competition for a roughly static number of shelves I used to be able to by RPG books in normal books stores, its how I got my collection of 3.5 mostly and was something of a reference library for me. That faded only in 4E.

2E well I can't speak to the TSR-->WotC transition since I've never researched in detail what went into that. Also have to consider between AD&D and Basic though I understand its AD&D that's been continued under the unified banner since 3E which matches the book titles. Also it had original and revised in its ten year run that I can't speak to the differences of. Still a ten year run says the core probably did acceptably and there's tertiary items like continuing novel publishing through the time frame. Something that on the barometer of my local bookstores has only been eaten up only in recent years. Now GW and video game books have most of those shelves to the detriment of D&D and SW.

1E would seem rather obviously to have not failed as nobody plays the white boxed original set or Chainmail all that much I'm aware of and how did we get all those other editions then? And going from '77 to '89 might arguably be the peak of the product in terms of media impact (the moral panic, transmission to RPG videogames, etc) though sales have a lot of potential differences over that span of time.

Your definition of failure doesn't seem to mesh up with reality to me though. Perhaps you were speaking in subjective qualitative terms? Because if so I prefer VtM to all D&D as a game engine though many other WW products never did it, and its barely come back and hanging on with print-on-demand and online pdf sales. Not a booming success especially considering it even had a TV show at one point.
Every single one stopped making enough money for TSR or WotC, and was replaced by a new iteration where they saw a chance for more profit.

I don't know how much clearer it can be. I know you very much want WotC's decision to end 3e and make 4e, and their decision to end 4e and make 5e to be made for different reasons, but it just ain't so.


Maybe.... but it comes after and should not conflict with putting out closest thing to a proven seller (the one with the most history) to hopefully keep the game afloat period.

Its not your first priority (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) which people demand or your second (the rest of the PHB classes) which people expect. Well maybe replace Warlock, but that another martial might show too much favoritism. Page count rears its ugly head somewhere especially if its got unique novel mechanics.

And it probably best not be patently better mechanically, at least not in fairly obvious ways. You also can't destroy the flavor of the game too much so completely novel concepts are dangerous too. Which imposes limits on the guy who's traditional shtick is hitting thinks really hard with a sword.
Consigning martial sorts to less interesting because you're scared they might compete with wizards for appeal and potency is terrible design.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Every single one stopped making enough money for TSR or WotC, and was replaced by a new iteration where they saw a chance for more profit.

I don't know how much clearer it can be. I know you very much want WotC's decision to end 3e and make 4e, and their decision to end 4e and make 5e to be made for different reasons, but it just ain't so.

Obviously you have to periodically reinvent yourself to keep bringing in the cash. You'll reach market saturation on the corebook, supplementals probably don't have the save potential, and doing something new is a good way to get more money out of the existing base while also addressing issues that might keep it from expanding further.

Now here's the difference... so people are still playing 2E and before then?
Oh sure the number isn't zero but I mean in numbers exceeding 3E and its iterations?
Are people playing 4E in numbers exceeding 3E and its iterations?


Consigning martial sorts to less interesting because you're scared they might compete with wizards for appeal and potency is terrible design.

Less interesting is a qualitative reaction. If that second bit is an appeal to balance even more so, even at worst I found the imbalance of 3.5 overrated once you leave thought experiments.

I found 4E to be less interesting too concerned with being a wargame or a videogame not a table-top role-playing game. And yes those points conflict for me, when you have the same mechanical structure to all classes for example reduces them to mere labels not siginificant statements of character. I don't want to have to file the serial numbers off an at-will power to pretend I'm just a dumb guy with a sword and would never name his attacks. It takes effort, it takes time, and it breaks immersion for me.

Now pro tip: I don't have to be right there I won by default anyways.

I voted my pocketbook and now WotC backpedaled and is interesting me again, supposedly boring fighters and all. Heck its managed to make the most interesting fighter lay out I've seen yet. Fighter is a selling point for the PHB now.

[obryn]

Obviously you have to periodically reinvent yourself to keep bringing in the cash. You'll reach market saturation on the corebook, supplementals probably don't have the save potential, and doing something new is a good way to get more money out of the existing base while also addressing issues that might keep it from expanding further.

Now here's the difference... so people are still playing 2E and before then?
Oh sure the number isn't zero but I mean in numbers exceeding 3E and its iterations?
Are people playing 4E in numbers exceeding 3E and its iterations?

Less interesting is a qualitative reaction. If that second bit is an appeal to balance even more so, even at worst I found the imbalance of 3.5 overrated once you leave thought experiments.

I found 4E to be less interesting too concerned with being a wargame or a videogame not a table-top role-playing game. And yes those points conflict for me, when you have the same mechanical structure to all classes for example reduces them to mere labels not siginificant statements of character. I don't want to have to file the serial numbers off an at-will power to pretend I'm just a dumb guy with a sword and would never name his attacks. It takes effort, it takes time, and it breaks immersion for me.

Now pro tip: I don't have to be right there I won by default anyways.

I voted my pocketbook and now WotC backpedaled and is interesting me again, supposedly boring fighters and all. Heck its managed to make the most interesting fighter lay out I've seen yet. Fighter is a selling point for the PHB now.
You are bizarrely invested in edition warring, man.

Tell you what - let me know when you want to discuss the design of the Fighter class and ideas for making it more interesting for people who want that sort of thing.

[Morty]

For some, the edition war never ended. It's like a gritty war film, except with less bloody flashbacks and more endlessly repeating arguments.

[Cibulan]

For some, the edition war never ended. It's like a gritty war film, except with less bloody flashbacks and more endlessly repeating arguments.I don't believe it will ever end because for people on either end of the 3.5 or 4e spectrum, there is little common ground between them but the nature of the D&D brand makes them try to come together. It's two groups that should have agreed to disagree and part ways long ago but they can't because they both claim ownership of "Dungeons and Dragons".

[Elderand]

I don't believe it will ever end because for people on either end of the 3.5 or 4e spectrum, there is little common ground between them but the nature of the D&D brand makes them try to come together. It's two groups that should have agreed to disagree and part ways long ago but they can't because they both claim ownership of "Dungeons and Dragons".

that doesn't just apply to 3.5 and 4th.

Every edition of dnd is like that. Old dnd is different from becmi is different from adnd is different for 3rd is different from 4th is different from 5th.
They might all share some superfical naming convention and brand names but in practice they are all different games altogether.

[BRC]

that doesn't just apply to 3.5 and 4th.

Every edition of dnd is like that. Old dnd is different from becmi is different from adnd is different for 3rd is different from 4th is different from 5th.
They might all share some superfical naming convention and brand names but in practice they are all different games altogether.

I think the edition war is pronounced with 4e and 3.5, if only because that split occurred during the age of the Internet, thus keeping the groups in contact.

[Elderand]

I think the edition war is pronounced with 4e and 3.5, if only because that split occurred during the age of the Internet, thus keeping the groups in contact.

That is true. My point was that it would be a mistake to think only 4th edition departed significantly from what came before. All edition change did it.

And it's something that is rarely seen outside of dnd. Other games, when a new edition comes out are more akin to adnd 1st and 2nd, or 3rd and 3.5. Rules fixes.
It is relatively rare to have an edition change where the whole game engine is built anew from the ground up

[BRC]

That is true. My point was that it would be a mistake to think only 4th edition departed significantly from what came before. All edition change did it.

And it's something that is rarely seen outside of dnd. Other games, when a new edition comes out are more akin to adnd 1st and 2nd, or 3rd and 3.5. Rules fixes.
It is relatively rare to have an edition change where the whole game engine is built anew from the ground up

From what I know of 2e (from playing Baldur's Gate admittedly), 4e seemed to be a more philosophical departure than 3e was.
Which isn't to say 3e wasn't a major departure. But from my (Admittedly very limited) exposure to 2nd, and 4th editions, 3e seems like a substantially changed version of 2nd, while 4th seems more like a different game.

[EvilAnagram]

From what I know of 2e (from playing Baldur's Gate admittedly), 4e seemed to be a more philosophical departure than 3e was.
Which isn't to say 3e wasn't a major departure. But from my (Admittedly very limited) exposure to 2nd, and 4th editions, 3e seems like a substantially changed version of 2nd, while 4th seems more like a different game.

I don't know. I think the switch from THAC0 was a much bigger change than anything in 4e.

It was also the best change ever.

[Elderand]

From what I know of 2e (from playing Baldur's Gate admittedly), 4e seemed to be a more philosophical departure than 3e was.
Which isn't to say 3e wasn't a major departure. But from my (Admittedly very limited) exposure to 2nd, and 4th editions, 3e seems like a substantially changed version of 2nd, while 4th seems more like a different game.

4th is an oulier in many respect. It's design was even more different than what happened in older edition changes; which certainly helped, along with the internet, fuel the flames of that particular edition war.

[Morty]

4e is still closer to the previous editions, and 5e, than to anything else. It uses many assumptions no system other than D&D does.

[obryn]

4e is still closer to the previous editions, and 5e, than to anything else. It uses many assumptions no system other than D&D does.
Yeah, this.

It's clearly in the same family of games, and you can draw a direct line from 3.5 (especially including latter-era releases) to it. Whether or not it's a philosophical departure depends on what, exactly, you were using the game for, beforehand, and what you considered key elements of D&D. The switch to a power system was, in my mind, no more radical than 3e's buffet-style multiclassing, addition of feats, and skill management.

This is still getting kind of far afield from the point, though. Love it or hate it, it's part of D&D's genome now, and it's reasonable to believe that players coming from 4e would like more interesting martial classes who have a lot more options than attacking. "Screw you, I got mine" may be viscerally satisfying, but still pretty mean-spirited.

(Someone on another messageboard was teaching their kid 5e for a playtest. The kid reacted really negatively to it. "No bloodied condition? This doesn't feel like D&D.") :smallbiggrin:

[Sartharina]

The number of people that play Pathfinder and 4e were close to the same (I'd say 4e lead), until 4e hit its critical mass of option/splat bloat. Paizo sells Adventure Paths, so it can continue selling new books without causing the system to bloat.

One of the big reasons for 3.5's popularity over other older editions was that it's the version the Internet grew up with.


From what I know of 2e (from playing Baldur's Gate admittedly), 4e seemed to be a more philosophical departure than 3e was.
Which isn't to say 3e wasn't a major departure. But from my (Admittedly very limited) exposure to 2nd, and 4th editions, 3e seems like a substantially changed version of 2nd, while 4th seems more like a different game.
Yes, 4e is a different game from 2e - but it's merely a substantially changed version of 3.5. It addressed issues with 3.5 that prevented it from being enjoyably played the way it was played at tables, with Encounters, parties balanced against the encounter/round instead of Adventure, small party group, equalized level, magic items all over the place.

I'm betting that WotC was confused as hell that 4e wasn't a hit here at the Playground, given that it seems tailored specifically to address the issues we kept finding and bringing up, and suit the playstyle that we professed to enjoy(And as for trashing 3.5 in marketing - it was just repeating what we've been saying about 3.5. How dare someone share our negative opinions on a product!)

[Tengu_temp]

Hey, this isn't an edition war thread. It's overshadowing the war between those who think Eldritch Knight sucks and those who think it's just fine!

[BRC]

I'm betting that WotC was confused as hell that 4e wasn't a hit here at the Playground, given that it seems tailored specifically to address the issues we kept finding and bringing up, and suit the playstyle that we professed to enjoy(And as for trashing 3.5 in marketing - it was just repeating what we've been saying about 3.5. How dare someone share our negative opinions on a product!)

It's the classic "Silent Majority" issue.

We whined and moaned about the problems with 3.5. They released 4e, but 4e didn't so much "Fix" the problems with 3.5 as "Not have them", which is a significant difference. The issues with 3.5 were ingrained and systemic enough that WoTC felt that the best way to Fix them was to substantially rebuild the system.
And we whined again. Because, if we wanted a system without 3.5's problems, then there were plenty of other games to play. What we wanted was DnD as we knew it (3.5)...but without the problems.

Basically, we wanted what we had, but better in every way. What they gave us was something different from what we had that didn't have the same problems.

5e, rather than trying to eliminate the problems with 3.5 (Which are systemic enough to require a massive overhaul that would send people running to the loving arms of pathfinder again), seems to be trying to counter those problems. Casters still get tons of Fun Stuff, but the Cantrips mean that they don't need a massive pile of spell slots to fill with boring-but-reliable spells to be useful. So, Cantrips keep casters useful, and they get fewer spell slots which they entierly dedicate to Fun Stuff.

Fighters are still primarily "Hit things with other things", but now they get more things to do while leveling up. They get some unique abilities (Extra actions), and depending on your path, can be tailor-made to different levels of complexity.

The Problem of Wizards being a big pile of options that players can tailor to different situations while fighters just get bigger numbers with which to hit things is still there, but it's lessened. And plenty of people played 3.5 even with it's problems.

3.5 was Good Enough. 5e is Better in many ways.
4e was Something Different.

[Person_Man]

I'm betting that WotC was confused as hell that 4e wasn't a hit here at the Playground, given that it seems tailored specifically to address the issues we kept finding and bringing up, and suit the playstyle that we professed to enjoy(And as for trashing 3.5 in marketing - it was just repeating what we've been saying about 3.5. How dare someone share our negative opinions on a product!)

Just speaking for myself, I actually like 4E, but:

Hated the fact that it didn't have an OGL.
Gleemax sucked and then died.
WotC often seemed to be dismissive or openly hostile to its own fans, whereas Paizo went out of its way to give me free new content to play with and openly requested player feedback.
At the time I didn't have much money, but over the years had accumulated hundreds of dollars of 3.X books and supplements, and didn't feel justified in buying a game I couldn't convince my friends to play.
4E Powers and Feats were often boring, fiddly/granular, and often similar to one another (especially within a class), plus you couldn't change out your Powers between game days unless you gained a level, and even then it was limited. So while a single 4E combat was often fun, a dozen 4E combats with the same party of characters was mind numbingly repetitive.



WotC has been far less jerky this time around, and I've purchased the Basic box and 5E PHB. I'm just cranky that 5E abandoned many of the gameplay improvements from 4E. I didn't buy 4E because WotC were jerks about it and 4E gameplay was repetative, not because 4E was balanced.

[Paragon86]

Hey, this isn't an edition war thread. It's overshadowing the war between those who think Eldritch Knight sucks and those who think it's just fine!

Best post ever hahaha. Speaking of which, (I know I'm rezing what looks like a dead thread but whatever) why has no one mentioned that you can take the Martial Adept feat multiple times and get the best of both worlds? Or in theory take the Initiate feat and be a BattleMaster who knows a trick or two?

[Phion]

Best post ever hahaha. Speaking of which, (I know I'm rezing what looks like a dead thread but whatever) why has no one mentioned that you can take the Martial Adept feat multiple times and get the best of both worlds? Or in theory take the Initiate feat and be a BattleMaster who knows a trick or two?

Better ways to use the slots honestly or just an ability score increase

[Ralanr]

Hey, this isn't an edition war thread. It's overshadowing the war between those who think Eldritch Knight sucks and those who think it's just fine!

Yes, please, if we need drama in the thread let's at least keep it pointed towards the actual topic of the thread rather than the topic off the track.

[Garimeth]

(I know I'm rezing what looks like a dead thread but whatever)

The real question is:

Are you a cleric or a necromancer?

[Paragon86]

The real question is:

Are you a cleric or a necromancer?

Let's go with cleric on account of my motives. (trying to get the thread back on track) =)


Better ways to use the slots honestly or just an ability score increase

Sure, it's not exactly optimized. But if the argument is that the BM's access to the maneuvers makes it a better choice, than taking the feat kind of kills that train of thought.

[archaeo]

Best post ever hahaha. Speaking of which, (I know I'm rezing what looks like a dead thread but whatever) why has no one mentioned that you can take the Martial Adept feat multiple times and get the best of both worlds? Or in theory take the Initiate feat and be a BattleMaster who knows a trick or two?

The former wasn't mentioned presumably because


You can take each feat only once, unless the feat’s description says otherwise.

Sorry.

[Psikerlord]

EK is the martial end of the Gish range, nothing wrong with it. Especially as the feat list expands, it gives you very sexy access to those feats. EK is not a trap crap, so shut it. It doesn't get all the bells and whistles that the other two archtypes get, but it VERY much gets high access as the game expands, with new spells and feats. If someone focuses more on sword play then on magic, then it makes perfect logic, that they won't be as good with magic.


Not everything is about optimization folks.

This^. Plus, many DMs dont allow multiclassing, which makes EK more palpable.

[Wolfsraine]

Didn't read through the entire thread so not sure if this has been suggested. I'd just houserule the ability to be "Whenever you take the attack action you can cast a cantrip you know as a bonus action."

[Chronos]

My problem with the Eldritch Knight is that there's already a class that does that, and better. If you want to play a gish-type who combines spellcasting with swordplay, there's the paladin. Not only does the paladin have spells, he also has a spell list that works very nicely with attacking, and class abilities to further combine them. Stick with the two schools of the wizard list that EK gets, though, and you have a handful of gems like Shield, but most of them, you're going to be stuck choosing between casting a spell and ignoring your weapon ability, or attacking and ignoring your spells. If you just want to attack, play another fighter type or a barbarian. If you just want to cast spells, play a wizard or sorcerer. If you want to combine attacking and spells, play a paladin. If you want to be able to do both but only actually do one of them, play an eldritch knight.

[Longcat]

War Magic is really great with Eldritch Blast and two levels of Warlock.

[Envyus]

It should be pointed out with War Magic that Cantrips can out damage a single attack made by a fighter. While it's unlikely for them to do more damage then all of the fighters attacks in a round. With the fighter being able to attack once as well they can do a lot of damage.

I believe the Eldrich Knight also has some powers that let them choose, spells and cantrips from any spell list at certain levels. So they can get quite a good combination going.

[SiuiS]

This^. Plus, many DMs dont allow multiclassing, which makes EK more palpable.

Isn't it a bit early in the history of the edition to make sweeping comments about the meta game? How many DMs have you directly polled before saying many of them do or do not do X?

[Chronos]

Quoth Envyus:

I believe the Eldrich Knight also has some powers that let them choose, spells and cantrips from any spell list at certain levels. So they can get quite a good combination going.
No, only the bard gets to choose spells from all lists. Well, and a tome warlock, but only for rituals. The Eldritch Knight does get a small number of spells chosen from any school (not just abjuration and evocation), but they still need to be wizard spells, so you can't pick up any of the good gish spells from paladin, ranger, or warlock.

[Paragon86]

Totally missed the bit about feats being a one time only deal, my bad. Makes the martial adept bit rather lack luster, but it's not like the BM's maneuvers are all that great anyway. To be frank, the Fighter class in general feels like it got the short end of the stick this time around. I mean I like the Eldritch Knight as a concept, and it functions well enough, especially as a story character but it doesn't seem to hold much of a candle to Paladins or Warlocks when it comes to magic sword wielders. I still feel like it's fine for what it is (5e's response to an Assault Swordmage) but if we're gonna tweak stuff why not just revamp the whole thing? Probably opening a can of worms with this, but dag nabit I want to talk about it and no one else wants to listen, so you will all have to suffer through my rant!

In my opinion, both the champion and battle master archetypes should just be part of the Fighter's package deal and the archetypes should have lined up with the fighting styles. (Although I would keep the EK and lump Defense with Protection) I mean, how hard could it have been to make most of the maneuvers available to all archetypes but make some exclusive to specific fighting styles?

For instance, a level 18 Fighter:Duelist archetype should get their +2 to damage, Remarkable Athlete, a second fighting style, Superior Critical, Survivor, and, because he's a fencer, access to Riposte and Parry, as well as the other "general maneuvers" with 6d12s for Superiority Dice.

It sounds like a lot but I think it balances out in the end. Here's why: if he crits on every attack with an Action Surge and expends all of his superiority dice he'll deal 12d8+6d12+23, potentially 191 points of damage. (assuming an ordinary rapier and adding in the extra 12 damage from being a duelist, +6 proficiency, and a Dex mod of 5) He has to expend everything that makes him competitive and continuously crit to land this much damage...

Meanwhile his level 17 Wizard friend drops a Meteor Swarm for 40d6. Potentially 240 damage, and he still has 18 other spells available! Anyone else agree that the only way to make the Fighter competitive is to give it access to everything?

[Kane0]

I don't know about anyone else, but my blacksmith fighter has a much easier job with access to mending, unseen servant and floating disk. Protection from evil and shield are fantastic when out in the field too.

He's definitely more fighter than caster but that little bit of casting is always handy when it comes up. If he died i would probably make a paladin to compare against, but so far he isnt useless.

[Kaeso]

I don't wish to derail the thread, but why does the Eldritch Knight not get any love here? I've never payed one, but on first glance it appears to be the very best fighter archetype. The Champion has a pretty useless passive increase in crit chances, and the battle master has nice manouvres but they don't really scale all that well. Meanwhile, the Eldritch Knight is a half caster that never sacrifices his melee damage potential. Sure, he'll never steal the limelight from the full casters, but that's never what they were intended to do. They're fighters at heart, but with more options. Going by JaronK's tier definitions from 3.5e (ie. tier isn't raw strength, but versatility), the Eldritch Knight should be ranked higher than the other fighter archetypes because his spells give him a lot of versatility without requiring him to give up anything that makes the fighter so good.

[CrusaderJoe]

After I made my own homebrew Fighter I have no need to play the Champion, Battle Master, or Eldritch Knight.

Champion is crap and the other two have the forgetful issue BM) and mediocre spell casting (EK).

If I want to play a legal Fighter...


Champion: Rogue (Thief)/Barbarian (Totem)
Edritch Knight: Paladin (Vengeance)/Bard (Lore)
Battlemaster: Monk (Open Hand) or Dwarven Str Monk (open hand)/Cleric (war).

I don't think the EK is a trap, but it just doesn't have the oomph that other classes gain (non-fighter).

[heavyfuel]

Isn't it a bit early in the history of the edition to make sweeping comments about the meta game? How many DMs have you directly polled before saying many of them do or do not do X?

Perhaps. However, I will say that it is an optional rule, and 3 out of 4 DMs I've had didn't allow it. Pretty small sample size, but still.


I don't wish to derail the thread, but why does the Eldritch Knight not get any love here? I've never payed one, but on first glance it appears to be the very best fighter archetype. The Champion has a pretty useless passive increase in crit chances, and the battle master has nice manouvres but they don't really scale all that well. Meanwhile, the Eldritch Knight is a half caster that never sacrifices his melee damage potential. Sure, he'll never steal the limelight from the full casters, but that's never what they were intended to do. They're fighters at heart, but with more options. Going by JaronK's tier definitions from 3.5e (ie. tier isn't raw strength, but versatility), the Eldritch Knight should be ranked higher than the other fighter archetypes because his spells give him a lot of versatility without requiring him to give up anything that makes the fighter so good.

I like him just fine. He's the arcane version of the Paladin, if a more martially focused one. I somewhat dislike War Magic being the other way around (cantrip when attack, instead of attack when cast cantrip), but that's still pretty cool.

[MadBear]

Isn't it a bit early in the history of the edition to make sweeping comments about the meta game? How many DMs have you directly polled before saying many of them do or do not do X?

What I'm going to say may be a bit pedantic, but so was this complaint, so........

anyways, they said "many" not "most/all/the majority/etc". Many might imply "majority", but it doesn't have too. The fact is I run 2 sessions at my school and I disallow multiclassing (new players need limits). Outside of school the group I play in allows it (although no one has taken the DM up on the offer to).

So between the last poster and I that's 5/7 games that don't allow it. Will that number hold? no. But I'd say it's enough to warrant someone saying "many games don't allow multi-classing".

[CrusaderJoe]

What I'm going to say may be a bit pedantic, but so was this complaint, so........

anyways, they said "many" not "most/all/the majority/etc". Many might imply "majority", but it doesn't have too. The fact is I run 2 sessions at my school and I disallow multiclassing (new players need limits). Outside of school the group I play in allows it (although no one has taken the DM up on the offer to).

So between the last poster and I that's 5/7 games that don't allow it. Will that number hold? no. But I'd say it's enough to warrant someone saying "many games don't allow multi-classing".

You don't have enough numbers to have a good data set. You can't say with any confidence, or sense of reality, that 7 instances is enough to determine what a majority of people are or are not doing in their game.

I mean, with this logic I can say that I talked to 7 people on giantitp and they said they hated 3.5 and therefore 3.5 is the least popular subforum on giantitp!

[MadBear]

You don't have enough numbers to have a good data set. You can't say with any confidence, or sense of reality, that 7 instances is enough to determine what a majority of people are or are not doing in their game.

I mean, with this logic I can say that I talked to 7 people on giantitp and they said they hated 3.5 and therefore 3.5 is the least popular subforum on giantitp!

You missed the point entirely of what I was saying. I was making the argument that many doesn't necessitate majority (although under some definition it can). I suggest you reread what I wrote, since pretty much the entirety of what you said is a not applicable.

(also, notice how in your example, you made a statement about the ratio of people who like 3.5 (least popular) instead of using what my point would have been (many do not like 3.5). The former is false (or I assume it is, but I don't frequent the 3.5 forum), while the ladder is quite true (there are many who dislike 3.5)).

[toapat]

Every single one stopped making enough money for TSR or WotC, and was replaced by a new iteration where they saw a chance for more profit.

I don't know how much clearer it can be. I know you very much want WotC's decision to end 3e and make 4e, and their decision to end 4e and make 5e to be made for different reasons, but it just ain't so.

My understanding of the 3.5 to 4th decision paints it more as a combination of hasbro demanding higher profit margins and the desire to regain control of the market. 3.5 was metastasized well beyond what anyone really believed though and that is what spawned pathfinder.

As for Eldrich knight, a lot of prcs kinda got screwed this Ed. The fact that a 12 fighter/8 full caster is just better beyond the lack of unified combat and casting ends up being silly

[Balor777]

No matter how much i tried EK without multiclassing sucks.
3rd level feature War magic:

This class ability is a joke realy...Cantrip and a bonus attack?
Isnt cantrip casted in melee poor choise due to disadvantage?

7th level feature Weapon bond
REALLY?He is bad at everyrhing really.I can live with low spellcasting but for god sake,unless you are
a hostage 10 times in your carrier or you get drunk and drop your weapons off cliffs thats also a stupid class feature.

10th level feature Eldrich strike
when i reached this
the first time i was reading about this class i was thirsty with hopes that this class gets better even at 10th level...
Ok you strike and enemy has disadvantage on the next round.Yeah i was happy until i realised that you dont have to cast anything usefull really.But even if you find something to cast...wait what on the next level you get your 3rd attack...You now should attack again cause its better...

The ONLY setup i can image with this guy here is the tank setup.Gimp your dps on purpose,start as a human with heavy armor master feat, take the defender style and start with 14 CHA, use the 4th lvl feats to get 18 CON ,take the tough feat at 6 lvl,20CON at 8 level ASI so you have 108 hp total.At 12 level get warcaster.You now have 160 hp.
From now on start to take levels in sorcerer.
You may find it strange but when you reach 15 level youll have 4 1st lvl slots to burn for 8mm points for 11 total.That 11 points are 11 twinned 4d10 firebolt cantrips for 8d10 damage plus a weapon attack.You can also cast a twinned haste or quickened fireball with an extra cantrip on the same round.Altho i would choose heightened spell for disadvantage on the saving throws to easily use controll spells,and twin spell of course.
At 12lvlEK/Sorc4 get your str to 18.You now have 232 hp and you can twin stone skin which stacks awesome with heavy armor master or twinned blight for some nice damage.5 lvl sorc and you can cast 5th level spells.

[MaxWilson]

Eldritch Knight can cast a cantrip and attack once in the same turn at level 7. Any spell at level 18. But, at the same time, he can just attack normally two times at level 5, three times at 11, four times at 20.

Are there any spells or cantrips worth using with this feature? Are there any wizard self-buffs worth it for a character who's going to be heavily-armored? This class just strikes me as very underwhelming, even by fighter standards.

Well... (thinks)

It comboes nicely with Eldritch Strike, to set up for a Bestow Curse spell next round. (You don't have that many spell slots so it's important to maximize the ones you've got.)

There are times when you might use it with True Strike, to cancel disadvantage. I'd have to run the math but my gut says that any time you need 13 or better to hit, one attack is better than 3 attacks at disadvantage.

At level 18, you can use it to attack in the same round you're casting Blur or Mirror Image on yourself. Blur is particularly good for a heavily-armored Eldritch Knight.

That's about all I can think of.

[MeeposFire]

Well... (thinks)

It comboes nicely with Eldritch Strike, to set up for a Bestow Curse spell next round. (You don't have that many spell slots so it's important to maximize the ones you've got.)

There are times when you might use it with True Strike, to cancel disadvantage. I'd have to run the math but my gut says that any time you need 13 or better to hit, one attack is better than 3 attacks at disadvantage.

At level 18, you can use it to attack in the same round you're casting Blur or Mirror Image on yourself. Blur is particularly good for a heavily-armored Eldritch Knight.

That's about all I can think of.

Just remember that true strike does not work until an attack on your next turn as I recall.

[heavyfuel]

There are times when you might use it with True Strike, to cancel disadvantage. I'd have to run the math but my gut says that any time you need 13 or better to hit, one attack is better than 3 attacks at disadvantage.

The chance of a 13 or higher at disadvantage is 16%. Since you have 3 shots at it, it becomes 48%. Meanwhile, the chance of rolling a 13 or higher on a single dice is 40%. So you not only have a better chance to hit once, but there's a decent chance you'll hit twice, even thrice.

[Joe the Rat]

The chance of a 13 or higher at disadvantage is 16%. Since you have 3 shots at it, it becomes 48%. Meanwhile, the chance of rolling a 13 or higher on a single dice is 40%. So you not only have a better chance to hit once, but there's a decent chance you'll hit twice, even thrice.
Three shots at 16% comes out to 40.7% of getting at least one hit. That still puts three swings at disadvantage ahead for average damage compared to 13+ on the die to hit. 14+, yes, true strike favors getting a hit in at least, but you're starting to push into ranges where you have to ask yourself if you wouldn't be better off casting a "save" spell instead.

[heavyfuel]

Three shots at 16% comes out to 40.7% of getting at least one hit.

How come? You have 16%+16%+16% because it's "either/or", not "and", so you add up the probabilities.

If you hit the first attack (16%), you still have 32% chance of hitting at least one other attack

[Icewraith]

How come? You have 16%+16%+16% because it's "either/or", not "and", so you add up the probabilities.

If you hit the first attack (16%), you still have 32% chance of hitting at least one other attack

% of an individual attack landing is 16%. 84% to miss one swing.

% chance to miss x sequential swings is chance^#swings, so .84^3 = .59.

If you don't miss three times on three swings you hit at least once, so 1-.59 = 41% chance to connect with at least one of the three swings.

[AgentPaper]

How come? You have 16%+16%+16% because it's "either/or", not "and", so you add up the probabilities.

If you hit the first attack (16%), you still have 32% chance of hitting at least one other attack

That's not how probabilities work. A 16% chance to hit is the same as a 84% chance to miss. To see what your chance of missing 3 times is, you multiply 0.84*0.84*0.84=0.59, or a 59% chance to miss all 3 attacks, which means a 41% chance to hit at least once.

[heavyfuel]

That's not how probabilities work. A 16% chance to hit is the same as a 84% chance to miss. To see what your chance of missing 3 times is, you multiply 0.84*0.84*0.84=0.59, or a 59% chance to miss all 3 attacks, which means a 41% chance to hit at least once.


% of an individual attack landing is 16%. 84% to miss one swing.

% chance to miss x sequential swings is chance^#swings, so .84^3 = .59.

If you don't miss three times on three swings you hit at least once, so 1-.59 = 41% chance to connect with at least one of the three swings.

Math makes zero sense...

[Icewraith]

Math makes zero sense...

Probability converts between % and decimals, probability of 1 (always) = 100%, .5 (half the time) = 50%, etc.

If you want to determine the probability of a number of things that could happen (hitting between one and three times on three swings), it's often simpler to calculate the probability of NOT doing that and subtracting it from one.

So, to hit the target at least once in three swings we need to not miss three times on three swings.

If we do miss three times in a row, the probability is multiplicative, just like you'd use to calculate the odds of getting a certain die result ((1/#sides)^#rolls) or heads/tails (.5^#flips) on a coin in a row. 16% chance to hit is an 84% chance to miss.

1 - .16 = .84

.84 * .84 * .84 = .84^3 = .59

Chance of missing three consecutive swings is 59%. Therefore the remaining events where you hit once, twice, and three times on three swings will total to 41%.

1- .59 = .41

[JFahy]

Math makes zero sense...

Au contraire. :smallbiggrin:

If you want to kick the analysis around more, making three
attacks with a 16% chance of success on each, you'll get...

zero hits 59.3% of the time,
one hit 33.9% of the time,
two hits 6.5% of the time, and
three hits 0.4% of the time. (Because I rounded, those add up to 100.1%.)



PS: If you're curious about the math...the chance of several things
(like hits) happening together is the product of their individual chances,
times the number of orders in which the things can happen.

So the chance of three hits landing is
(chance of a hit) x (chance of a hit) x (chance of a hit) x (number of orders).

The chance of a hit in this case is 0.16. There's only 1 order in which
three hits can happen ("hit, hit, hit")
(0.16)x(0.16)x(0.16)x(1) = 0.004 or 0.4%.

Two hits (and one miss):
(chance of a hit) x (chance of a hit) x (chance of a miss) x (number of orders)

Chance of a hit is 0.16. Chance of a miss is 0.84. There are three orders
this can happen in ("hit-hit-miss, hit-miss-hit and miss-hit-hit") so
(0.16)x(0.16)x(0.84)x(3) = 0.0645 = 6.5%.

...probably more than you wanted already, so I'll stop.
(Sorry. Math teacher. I couldn't leave it alone. :smallwink: )

...and to top it off, Ice was faster. Arg.

[Icewraith]

Au contraire. :smallbiggrin:

If you want to kick the analysis around more, making three
attacks with a 16% chance of success on each, you'll get...

zero hits 59.3% of the time,
one hit 33.9% of the time,
two hits 6.5% of the time, and
three hits 0.4% of the time. (Because I rounded, those add up to 100.1%.)



PS: If you're curious about the math...the chance of several things
(like hits) happening together is the product of their individual chances,
times the number of orders in which the things can happen.

So the chance of three hits landing is
(chance of a hit) x (chance of a hit) x (chance of a hit) x (number of orders).

The chance of a hit in this case is 0.16. There's only 1 order in which
three hits can happen ("hit, hit, hit")
(0.16)x(0.16)x(0.16)x(1) = 0.004 or 0.4%.

Two hits (and one miss):
(chance of a hit) x (chance of a hit) x (chance of a miss) x (number of orders)

Chance of a hit is 0.16. Chance of a miss is 0.84. There are three orders
this can happen in ("hit-hit-miss, hit-miss-hit and miss-hit-hit") so
(0.16)x(0.16)x(0.84)x(3) = 0.0645 = 6.5%.

...probably more than you wanted already, so I'll stop.
(Sorry. Math teacher. I couldn't leave it alone. :smallwink: )

...and to top it off, Ice was faster. Arg.

Yes, but you've brilliantly demonstrated exactly why it's faster and easier to calculate the odds of something happening at least once from a variable number of tries by subtracting the odds of it not happening from one instead of calculating the individual probabilities and adding them together.

[JFahy]

Yes, but you've brilliantly demonstrated exactly why it's faster and easier to calculate the odds of something happening at least once from a variable number of tries by subtracting the odds of it not happening from one instead of calculating the individual probabilities and adding them together.

Yeah. If you want to do an exact cost-benefit, though, you do want
the chance of each number of hits.

In this case it isn't a big difference, but inexperienced people are going
to see a 59% miss chance and conclude that the expected number of
hits is 0.41, when in fact it's 0.481 because of the (fairly poor) chance
of actually hitting more than once.

[Icewraith]

Yeah. If you want to do an exact cost-benefit, though, you do want
the chance of each number of hits.

In this case it isn't a big difference, but inexperienced people are going
to see a 59% miss chance and conclude that the expected number of
hits is 0.41, when in fact it's 0.481 because of the (fairly poor) chance
of actually hitting more than once.

If you want to do an exact cost-benefit, you have to account for the extra damage die on a natural 20 and multiply each set of outcomes by the average damage to get your actual expected average damage per round. It should be noted that the 16% chance to hit 13 or better with disadvantage doesn't account for the damage loss of having your critical hits negated 95% of the time (90% of the time with an expanded critical range).

[ZenBear]

My two cents:

Haven't played EK yet, but a party member was one. Far from optimized, but still our deadliest party member. Our full casters could pump out bigger novas, but our TWF EK could lay the hurt down every turn at any range.

The way I see it, EK is a Fighter who dabbles in spells for versatility and utility, not raw power. The limitation to Abjuration and Evocation makes sense since Fighters are all about combat and those are the two most direct-combat-centric schools. It's a harsh limitation, but that's intentional to keep EK's from being strictly superior to any multiclass options.

The spells I think are most useful on EK are AoE damage like Burning Hands for dealing with spread out foes you can't reach in melee and swarms that take half damage from direct attacks; elemental damage for foes with resistance/immunity to physical damage, which is fairly common (lycanthropes, for example); status effects that you can't get easily or at all through physical attacks (ray of frost slow, shocking grasp reaction-denial, darkness, etc).

War Magic is better than a lot of people seem to think IMO. With how cantrips scale, you are effectively doing 1W more damage per turn than a caster who only cantrips, and your next spell has advantage. Add the status effects I mentioned above and I don't see much downside, it honestly could be better to cantrip/attack than full attack at certain levels.

True Strike seems like a trap to me, except early on when your options might be two disadvantage attacks or one regular (iirc this can be done in the same turn, concentration until the end of next turn). Blade Ward is a nice alternative to Dodge action when you think they're going to land attacks despite disadvantage, and you still get a quick hit in.

Another thing I didn't see mentioned much in my skimming of the thread is archery. Not only is EK designed to be a "gish" (tbh I'm too young to know where this originated, I just know it in context) swordmage, but also the arcane archer.

EK isn't the epitome of damage dealing or survivability, sure, but it's plenty capable enough to warrant play. You want to optimize the "perfect" gish with the most possible damage possible then maybe it isn't for you. That doesn't make it worthless.

[Malifice]

Meanwhile his level 17 Wizard friend drops a Meteor Swarm for 40d6. Potentially 240 damage, and he still has 18 other spells available! Anyone else agree that the only way to make the Fighter competitive is to give it access to everything?

An average of 140 points of damage. And thats his 9th level spell for the whole day (he only gets one).

An action surging Champion Fighter of the same level can (twice per short rest) easily average that with a mundane non magic weapon. 7 Great sword attacks with GWM and GWF deals (14d6+105) or around 155 damage (plus crits, less misses). With the right magic weapon, this goes up substantially.

[Chronos]

The fighter can do that damage to a single target within a few hundred feet, or divided up amongst multiple targets. The wizard, meanwhile, is doing it to everything in a huge area of effect, from miles away.

[MadBear]

The fighter can do that damage to a single target within a few hundred feet, or divided up amongst multiple targets. The wizard, meanwhile, is doing it to everything in a huge area of effect, from miles away.

The fighter can also do that one more time, and then do it all again every short rest (for an average of 6 times a day).

The wizard will still only get to do it once in a day, and it uses up their best spell slot.


note: I'm not saying that the fighter has equal versatility to the wizard (but the EK will also be able to drop a decent AOE spells, or go up and pile the hurt on someones face). Their just different abilities that do different things for different purposes.

[Talderas]

This class ability is a joke realy...Cantrip and a bonus attack?
Isnt cantrip casted in melee poor choise due to disadvantage?

Ranged attacks cast at a target 5ft away suffer disadvantage. If there's no attack roll or the range is touch it doesn't suffer disadvantage. Blade Ward, Poison Spray, Shocking Grasp, and a lesser extent True Strike, are all useful cantrips for a EK engaged in melee.

[Icewraith]

Where EK really shines is a theoretical gestalt campaign with any flavor of rogue, especially arcane trickster. All of a sudden True Strike looks really good against certain types of high AC targets (trade up to three attacks to land that sneak attack) and you don't sacrifice the majority of your damage output if you need to turtle up with Blade Ward.

You pick spells from the other schools with your arcane trickster abilities, your spell slot progression is significantly faster even if you're still not a full caster, and you have twice the spells known you otherwise would. With so many more spells from other schools and extra spell slots to burn, raising your int to make use of the "attack your target and force disadvantage on the next save they make against you" is suddenly a lot more valuable, and you have the feats/ASIs to do that from Fighter and Rogue.

[Talderas]

Where EK really shines is a theoretical gestalt campaign with any flavor of rogue, especially arcane trickster. All of a sudden True Strike looks really good against certain types of high AC targets (trade up to three attacks to land that sneak attack) and you don't sacrifice the majority of your damage output if you need to turtle up with Blade Ward.

You pick spells from the other schools with your arcane trickster abilities, your spell slot progression is significantly faster even if you're still not a full caster, and you have twice the spells known you otherwise would. With so many more spells from other schools and extra spell slots to burn, raising your int to make use of the "attack your target and force disadvantage on the next save they make against you" is suddenly a lot more valuable, and you have the feats/ASIs to do that from Fighter and Rogue.

I think your theoretical gestalht is depending on getting a second set of spell slots but if we look at 3rd edition gestalht rules, I don't think that's a good assumption. You only gained the unique aspects of both classes but where both classes were granting the same thing (BAB, save growth, etc) you took the better of the two but not both. Spell slots are not a unique feature to classes in 5th edition and as such I would be more inclined to believe that 5th edition gestalht of EK/AT would result in no more spell slots than either would get individually. More likely than not you would take the best spell slot growth of the classes you select so taking AT/EK is worth one third of a level of spell slots while taking ranger/AT would be worth one half. So a gestalht gish could go Wizard/EK but if you're doing that you're doing it for the additional spells prepared and the abilities granted by EK.

[Pex]

My problem with the Eldritch Knight is that there's already a class that does that, and better. If you want to play a gish-type who combines spellcasting with swordplay, there's the paladin. Not only does the paladin have spells, he also has a spell list that works very nicely with attacking, and class abilities to further combine them. Stick with the two schools of the wizard list that EK gets, though, and you have a handful of gems like Shield, but most of them, you're going to be stuck choosing between casting a spell and ignoring your weapon ability, or attacking and ignoring your spells. If you just want to attack, play another fighter type or a barbarian. If you just want to cast spells, play a wizard or sorcerer. If you want to combine attacking and spells, play a paladin. If you want to be able to do both but only actually do one of them, play an eldritch knight.

Valor Bard would be another option if prefer a bit more potent spellcasting.

[Knaight]

Math makes zero sense...

Here's a simplified example: Say there are two 50% chances of something happening. Is the chance it happens at least once 100%? If you just add the numbers together, that's what you get. It's also obviously wrong - by that logic, you are guaranteed to get both two heads and two tails when flipping two coins. So what you do is instead break down the possibilities, and see what the odds are. You can just brute force this through multiplying everything together to find every possibility, or you can take short cuts. 1-(1-possibility)^n is one of those short cuts.

[Nod_Hero]

Taking the Find Familiar spell as one of your choices and getting an Owl familiar seems like a pretty neat trick, unless I'm missing something.
Owl uses the Help action on it's turn to give advantage on next attack, then flies away without giving up an Opportunity attack thanks to Flyby.

[heavyfuel]

Taking the Find Familiar spell as one of your choices and getting an Owl familiar seems like a pretty neat trick, unless I'm missing something.
Owl uses the Help action on it's turn to give advantage on next attack, then flies away without giving up an Opportunity attack thanks to Flyby.

You're missing that Find Familiar is Conjuration, and EK only gets Abjuration and Evocation spells. It's possile through multiclassing and feats though

You're missing that it also has 1hp and 11 AC only. She's really not gonna survive more than 1 round

[CrusaderJoe]

Taking the Find Familiar spell as one of your choices and getting an Owl familiar seems like a pretty neat trick, unless I'm missing something.
Owl uses the Help action on it's turn to give advantage on next attack, then flies away without giving up an Opportunity attack thanks to Flyby.

Yup, that seems to be the basic use for that spell in... Anyone's hands.


Edit:

The fighter has to pick two spells from Abj or Evoc but one spell can be any school. In total I think they get four spells of any school.

[MadBear]

You're missing that Find Familiar is Conjuration, and EK only gets Abjuration and Evocation spells. It's possile through multiclassing and feats though

You're missing that it also has 1hp and 11 AC only. She's really not gonna survive more than 1 round

keep in mind that the fighter does get a limited use of other spells though.

[heavyfuel]

The fighter has to pick two spells from Abj or Evoc but one spell can be any school. In total I think they get four spells of any school.

Indeed, I misread it. Still, it's a 1HP 11AC companion only available to you only at lv 8.

[CrusaderJoe]

Indeed, I misread it. Still, it's a 1HP 11AC companion only available to you only at lv 8.

Read the owl's stat block. The owl has mobility, grants no OA, and a +3 to stealth. You don't need to take the hide action if you move to a place the enemy can't reach you or can't see you (behind a wall or rafter or... Tree). The owl also has a 60' fly speed.

It is easier at low levels for a creature to kill the fighter than it would be this owl. Mainly because the owl is so damn slippery. The fighter however can't do the same things but is the biggest threat since the owl can't attack and the fighter is swinging a big stick.

If the enemy doesn't take their turn you can order your familiar not to help since you know the enemy is holding their attack to strike the owl. Which is even better than getting advantage!

That 11AC 1 HP owl is a huge help to a rogue, fighter, or anyone else that uses attack rolls.

[heavyfuel]

Read the owl's stat block. The owl has mobility, grants no OA, and a +3 to stealth. You don't need to take the hide action if you move to a place the enemy can't reach you or can't see you (behind a wall or rafter or... Tree). The owl also has a 60' fly speed.

[...]

That 11AC 1 HP owl is a huge help to a rogue, fighter, or anyone else that uses attack rolls.

So you're telling me that a threat for an 8th level party lacks any ranged attacks? Or maybe they lack access to the Ready action? It's a big help, until the enemy decides to spend one of his attacks on your ol the second it comes within range. Sure, you made him waste an attack, but it's hardly a "huge help".

[CrusaderJoe]

So you're telling me that a threat for an 8th level party lacks any ranged attacks? Or maybe they lack access to the Ready action? It's a big help, until the enemy decides to spend one of his attacks on your ol the second it comes within range. Sure, you made him waste an attack, but it's hardly a "huge help".

Going into mid levels 8 - 14 or whatever the owl would need to be used wisely. However, think of how much HP you just prevented with one attack. A normal hit? A crit? A death? You wouldn't just throw the owl out there willy nilly, use some tactics.

I already covered ready actions. Read my last response please.

I used the owl just fine so far up to level 7, my DM messaged me earlier and said that the she has been trying to kill it and WILL kill it eventually haha. Don't just throw it out there like a PC, it is a tool and not a PC.

[heavyfuel]

I already covered ready actions. Read my last response please.

I used the owl just fine so far up to level 7, my DM messaged me earlier and said that the she has been trying to kill it and WILL kill it eventually haha. Don't just throw it out there like a PC, it is a tool and not a PC.

That is, if the DM is kind enough to say the guy is waiting for your owl. Nothing in the rules says so, and since the guy isn't standing still during his turn, it probably isn't RAI as well

That's one of my beefs with 5e. There's almost no penalty for suicide tactics. Resurrection doesn't even grant level loss anymore, much like sending your familiar on a suicide mission doesn't impeed you from getting another one for a whole year nor does it make you lose XP.

[CrusaderJoe]

That is, if the DM is kind enough to say the guy is waiting for your owl. Nothing in the rules says so, and since the guy isn't standing still during his turn, it probably isn't RAI as well

That's one of my beefs with 5e. There's almost no penalty for suicide tactics. Resurrection doesn't even grant level loss anymore, much like sending your familiar on a suicide mission doesn't impeed you from getting another one for a whole year nor does it make you lose XP.

Well it isn't too hard to guess what is happening.

I'm beating on the monster and it isn't fighting back? Maybe it is waiting for something to happen... Do note that the familiar doesn't go on your turn exactly. It gets its own turn.coordinate with it. Have it change its turn so that it is staggered with you and your target.

Really, no version of d&d put hard limits on suicide tactics. If you don't wanna pay for reviving a dead character you make a new one. And you are giving up something for that familiar. Either a feat slot or a spell known/spell slot. You just pay in advance for when it dies, not later if it dies.

[RulesJD]

As your first choice spell, take Find Familiar as a auto-generating advantage/darkvision/perception/etc machine.
Second choice spell, take either Hold Person or Suggestion. Take the GWM feat.

Round 1: Do what you have to in order to hit a target. Eldritch Strike triggers.
Round 2: Cast Hold Person (disadvantage = probably fail). Action Surge. Strike with GWM = Crit = automatic bonus attack. Congrats, you now auto-crit on 3-4 hits before they get another save.
Alt Round 2: Cast Suggestion. They will likely fail and bam, you've removed and enemy from the fight.

Do not underestimate the ability to force disadvantage against a saving throw for a spell.

[Chronos]

It's debatable whether a familiar can even use the Help action to grant advantage on an attack roll. In the section on using ability scores, it says you can only help with a task if it's one you could perform yourself, and familiars can't attack. Though admittedly, it's not clear whether that limit applies only to ability checks, or to combat as well.

[RulesJD]

It's debatable whether a familiar can even use the Help action to grant advantage on an attack roll. In the section on using ability scores, it says you can only help with a task if it's one you could perform yourself, and familiars can't attack. Though admittedly, it's not clear whether that limit applies only to ability checks, or to combat as well.

No, it's not debatable. The familiar can provide the following actions: Cast A Spell, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Ready, Search, and Use an Object. I am not sure why someone is insinuating that you can only take the familiar at 8th level.

[heavyfuel]

I am not sure why someone is insinuating that you can only take the familiar at 8th level.

I'm not insinuating anything. I said that a straight classed Eldritch Knight only gets a familiar at lv 8, but it's possible to get it earlier through multiclass or feats. Nothing but the truth.

[Chronos]

Right, the familiar can use the Help action. And the Help action lets you assist on a task you yourself can perform. So, for instance, if you're trying to notice something, the familiar could help you, since the familiar can make Perception checks. But familiars can't attack, and so (if the rule applies), they can't help you attack, either.

[Iolo Morganwg]

... a straight classed Eldritch Knight only gets a familiar at lv 8...

Can't he take it as his level one any-school spell?

[heavyfuel]

Can't he take it as his level one any-school spell?

Hmm. Yes, he can. For some reason I though that line was for Cantrips, not 1st level spells. My bad...

Still, even at level 3, 1 HP and 11 AC isn't going to survive very long in combat. He's pretty much 10 GP and a ritual for Advantage once and tanking one attack. Has his uses, but hardly worth your spell known

[MadBear]

Hmm. Yes, he can. For some reason I though that line was for Cantrips, not 1st level spells. My bad...

Still, even at level 3, 1 HP and 11 AC isn't going to survive very long in combat. He's pretty much 10 GP and a ritual for Advantage once and tanking one attack. Has his uses, but hardly worth your spell known

once.... or if used wisely, alot more often. I can't imagine most low intelligence enemies going after the owl, when their a guy in armor swings a sword at their face... unless of course the GM decides to meta-game the situation in which case, you meta-game back by having it go after the enemies have all gone (to make sure they don't hold attack actions).

[heavyfuel]

once.... or if used wisely, alot more often. I can't imagine most low intelligence enemies going after the owl, when their a guy in armor swings a sword at their face... unless of course the GM decides to meta-game the situation in which case, you meta-game back by having it go after the enemies have all gone (to make sure they don't hold attack actions).

Precisely, the guy in armor that is very hard to hit and even harder to kill? Or the fragile bird that is giving said guy a massive advantage (pun intended)? Not a very tough choice. I'd seriously put it that any enemy with Int 3 or higher is gonna come up with a plan to kill the damned bird that's making his life more difficult, and it wouldn't even be metagame, as it's a pretty staple fantasy trope. The useless ally, often the comic relief, tries to help the hero by distracting the giant stupid monster, only to be hit and launched at a wall or similar solid object.

I'm not saying the familiar is useless in combat. It can be a very powerful tool, but when it comes with the cost of not being able to get, say, Detect Magic, Fog Cloud, Grease or Silent Image, all spells that give the Fighter much needed versatility, it becomes much less attractive. It also becomes much less attractive when you realise that gaining advantage is trivial at higher levels.

Sure, the familiar can scout for you, which is truly its greatest use. But unless you lack a scout (a Rogue, usually) it's simply an addition to the team, but hardly a vital one. Fact is, familiars aren't as great as they were in 3.5 where they were basically another character you got to control, that had decent survivability.

Overall, it's an okay spell choice, but it's not really worth it to get it in exchange for other more useful spells.

[CrusaderJoe]

Precisely, the guy in armor that is very hard to hit and even harder to kill? Or the fragile bird that is giving said guy a massive advantage (pun intended)? Not a very tough choice. I'd seriously put it that any enemy with Int 3 or higher is gonna come up with a plan to kill the damned bird that's making his life more difficult, and it wouldn't even be metagame, as it's a pretty staple fantasy trope. The useless ally, often the comic relief, tries to help the hero by distracting the giant stupid monster, only to be hit and launched at a wall or similar solid object.

I'm not saying the familiar is useless in combat. It can be a very powerful tool, but when it comes with the cost of not being able to get, say, Detect Magic, Fog Cloud, Grease or Silent Image, all spells that give the Fighter much needed versatility, it becomes much less attractive. It also becomes much less attractive when you realise that gaining advantage is trivial at higher levels.

Sure, the familiar can scout for you, which is truly its greatest use. But unless you lack a scout (a Rogue, usually) it's simply an addition to the team, but hardly a vital one. Fact is, familiars aren't as great as they were in 3.5 where they were basically another character you got to control, that had decent survivability.

Overall, it's an okay spell choice, but it's not really worth it to get it in exchange for other more useful spells.

You assume the EK has a high Int in order to cast offensive spells. Sorry but I've seen way to many builds that almost dump Int. Why? Because they don't need offensive spells. Detect magic is better as a ritual (EK can't do that) and all the other spells rely on a good to high Int to work consistently.

Taking Find Familiar woks just fine. Most people would take shield instead but that is overkill on a fighter in all honesty.

Intelligence is a nice luxury, but Str/Dex, Con, and Wis are necessities. Attack score and the two big defense scores. Besides having a 10 in Int wouldn't make you stupid, just average. An average person can use tactics just fine, especially when they have been trained in them for years.

I think the issue here is that you just don't know how to use the owl as a tool in actual game play (you are assuming by stats iy is worthless) and so you keep assuming that everyone else doesn't know how to use the owl.

Even if it does die, guess what, you get a new one for 10 gp.

[RulesJD]

Hmm. Yes, he can. For some reason I though that line was for Cantrips, not 1st level spells. My bad...

Still, even at level 3, 1 HP and 11 AC isn't going to survive very long in combat. He's pretty much 10 GP and a ritual for Advantage once and tanking one attack. Has his uses, but hardly worth your spell known

You were wrong about what level an Eldrich Knight can take a familiar, and you're wrong about the actions a familiar can take. Your reference is in regard to only being able to assist with ability checks you are capable of performing. The Help action for an attack is an independent Action, not an ability check.

If you can't keep a familiar alive, you aren't very creative. Have the creature remain in your backpack (full cover). The only way an enemy should be able to kill your familiar is an unexpected trap/AoE, or a Readied action. Either way, the familiar is a massively powerful force multiplier for only 10gp and that retains its usefulness throughout levels 1-20.

[heavyfuel]

You assume the EK has a high Int in order to cast offensive spells.

Nope, I'm not. He might have, but of all the spells I've mentioned, only Grease requires decent Int to be useful.



and you're wrong about the actions a familiar can take. Your reference is in regard to only being able to assist with ability checks you are capable of performing.

If you can't keep a familiar alive, you aren't very creative. Have the creature remain in your backpack (full cover). The only way an enemy should be able to kill your familiar is an unexpected trap/AoE, or a Readied action. Either way, the familiar is a massively powerful force multiplier for only 10gp and that retains its usefulness throughout levels 1-20.

Really? Exactly where did I say that?

Or maybe your enemy isn't very creative. Sure, if you're DM's way of playing is just throw attacks after attacks at you, yeah, your familiar will live without much trouble. AoEs should never be "unexpected". Targeted cantrips that have a range of 60ft aren't rare and neither are ranged weapons. And it's not just 10gp, it's 10gp and 1 spell slot (since EK doesn't get Ritual Casting)

[Ardantis]

In this entire thread, I think I've seen one response from someone whose actually played an EK, and he said it was pretty good, with attack options against nearly any foe.

Does any one else actually have in game experience with the EK?

[Ardantis]

Also which is better- dump Int or dump Dex?

[Malifice]

Also which is better- dump Int or dump Dex?

Seeing as Int is your casting stat, dump Dex!

[obryn]

Seeing as Int is your casting stat, dump Dex!
You're better off focusing on spells that don't rely on saving throws, tbh.

[Person_Man]

Also which is better- dump Int or dump Dex?

I would dump both Int and Cha, and don't cast spells that use a Saving Throw. Even if you attack with Str, you want respectable Dex, for Initiative and Saving Throw purposes.

[Mara]

Benifits of EK:
1) Diversity in options. You don't get better at smacking things, but you have more options.
2) No need for Dex for range combat.
3) Great defenses. Shield plus other spells are great.
4) EK levels multiclass well with caster levels. EK 11/W9 has 5th level wizard spells, 3 attacks, and slots equal to a 12th level caster.

Downside:
You don't get the champion or battlemaster features.
Seems fair.

[Malifice]

Benifits of EK:
1) Diversity in options. You don't get better at smacking things, but you have more options.
2) No need for Dex for range combat.
3) Great defenses. Shield plus other spells are great.
4) EK levels multiclass well with caster levels. EK 11/W9 has 5th level wizard spells, 3 attacks, and slots equal to a 12th level caster.

Downside:
You don't get the champion or battlemaster features.
Seems fair.

You get your extra punch from enlarge person (and haste) and AOE blasts. You get your defence from mirror image, counterspell and of course shield (and haste). You get your mobility from expeditious retreat (and haste!).

War magic at 7th is vastly underrated as well, particularly if you can get access to Eldritch blast.

It balances fine with the other fighter archetypes.

[Vogonjeltz]

You're better off focusing on spells that don't rely on saving throws, tbh.

Perhaps, but given that the majority of spells will be Evocation or Abjuration, it becomes a salient issue that the spell attack modifier uses intelligence.

I'd advise any EK to prioritize Int because: attack rolls.


There are only 18 abjuration and evocation spells (2 cantrips, 5 first level spells, 3 second level spells, 5 third level spells, and 3 fourth level spells) that don't depend on either a save or an attack roll. Not surprisingly, they're almost all non-combat utility spells, which de facto means they're not the best choices for an Eldritch Knight (they want combat spells that interact favorably with their class features).

Blade Ward
Dancing Lights

Alarm
Mage Armor
Magic Missile
Protection from Evil and Good
Shield

Arcane Lock
Continual Flame
Darkness

Leomund's Tiny Hut
Nondetection
Protection from Energy
Remove Curse
Sending

Fire Shield
Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum
Stoneskin

[ChubbyRain]

Also which is better- dump Int or dump Dex?

Wait? There are EK Fighters that aren't Gnomes?

Next you are going to tell me there are EK Fighters that aren't Gnomes and they don't take Warcaster and Crossbow Expert while maxing out Dex and Int...

[Malifice]

Wait? There are EK Fighters that aren't Gnomes?

Next you are going to tell me there are EK Fighters that aren't Gnomes and they don't take Warcaster and Crossbow Expert while maxing out Dex and Int...

dont be silly - there are totally other EK builds that are just as potent.

[ChubbyRain]

dont be silly - there are totally other EK builds that are just as potent.

I don't know as potent, but from what I've seen Gnomes are a very very very popular choice for EK.

The talk of dumping Int and/or Dex was funny to me.

You can have 2 feats, 20 Dex/Int, decent other scores and a final ASI to pumo Con or take another feat.

I winder how deep gnome looks as a EK, they get some extra spells via a feat... Blind/deafness would be a great spell to best out after a melee attack.

Edit: I think I found a good use for deep gnome that the other gnomes don't cover haha! :P

[Ghost Nappa]

In this entire thread, I think I've seen one response from someone whose actually played an EK, and he said it was pretty good, with attack options against nearly any foe.

Does any one else actually have in game experience with the EK?

I just finished a campaign (literally half an hour ago) where I started as a Level 2 Fighter and worked my way up to a just hitting Level 4 Human Eldritch Knight.

Our campaign was primarily social so I don't think I can serve as a fair representation of the martial prowess behind the EK, but I would that I managed to be THE biggest attractive force for damage n the fights we DID have: my AC was the highest, so I'd run up and harass enemies with ****ty puns and provoke them drawing most of the attention to myself. I also wound up bringing up lots of tactical options like slowing down large targets like a young adult black dragon (with some difficulty) and the use of the Shield spell very definitely saved my life in that encounter (I eventually wound up drawing enough attention to eat a full-power acid breath attack of 49 damage dropping me into the -20's so being able to straight up ignore his normal attacks with the Shield Spell was SOOO nice for tanking).

The Eldritch Knight is very much the martial end of the gish but it is very good at what it does: It's a physical powerhouse with a couple of magical tricks to augment its bread and butter. You are still a martial character, and you're going to be fighting with your weapons more often than magic but the magic spells you get will give you offensive options and defensive options that are more useful in a wide variety of combat situations. In short, you are picking up a bit of versatility and active decision making in exchange for more specialized weapon prowess (Champion) or Battlemaster.


A Medium or Heavy Armor character being able to push their AC into the mid-20's for individual attacks(and eventually into the 30's if mage gear comes into play), consistently, reliably and with little effort is a godsend for a tank and nothing sucks more than getting into a fight with a ghost and being told you can't do anything because you don't have a rudimentary understanding of magic.

The Shield Spell alone is something I cannot stress enough on a tank. It's a reaction, and you can't use it as many times as a Wizard, but it's far more useful to you because you can straight up ignore an attack that would otherwise do huge damage, and then sponge another with your massive HP, heal it off with second wind and still get some weapon swings in.


Edit: For the record,
HP: 32 @ Lvl 3
AC: 19 (15 (Armor) + 2 (Dex) + 2 (Buckler)
Race: Human
Stats: 18/14/16/18/12/12
Skills: Athletics, History, Perception, Persuasion
Alignment: CN
Languages: Common, Dwarven, Undercommon
Background: Noble
Favored Weapons: Longsword, Light Crossbow
Cantrips: Minor Illusion, Ray of Frost
Level 1 Spells: Magic Missile, Shield, Feather Fall

[Daltry]

I know this thread is old but being in a 16th level game now using an EK I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in and see if any one was still interested.

First I think they have 2 main weaknesses.

The first comes at 5th level. The fighter gets extra attack. The champion can get 2 chances to score his improved criticals. a gamble but over all improving his odds, he levels up. The battlemaster can apply his maneuvers and superiority dice to another attack and clearly improves. The EK on the other hand doesn't really increase at this level. He simply gets a choice, cast or attack with weapons. Using something like booming blade or green flame blade as his cast he can roll once and on a hit do extra damage but on a miss gets nothing for his turn. Or he can get 2 chances to hit but only doing the weapon attack damage. If he only lands one blow he does less damage. There are times that this choice comes in handy like if your fighting a creature vulnerable to fire use the GFB but if fighting a creature with fire resistance or immunity go with the pure weapon attack. Most of the time it will simply be a choice of which one you think will average out better. Clearly the EK doesn't actually level up at this level but rather gets held back. When he gets to level 7 he gets and extra action on a cantrip attack but now he's just where he should have been 2 levels ago. So when everyone else levels up again at level 7 your going "slow down guys, wait for me. I'm just getting to level 5."

The second comes at higher levels. He doesn't have big spells and he doesn't have things like paladin smites etc. that give him big damage against the strong creatures.

On the plus side it's fun to play this character and be able to use magic and melee together. It's a battle strategy character and you have to put more thought than usual into when to use which option which spells to pick, and how to use both together to optimize him. and he has one cool feature that few if any single class magic users can do. By using action surge he can cast 2 full spells on a single turn. Those spells could potentially be. 2 lightning bolts, 2 fireballs, one of each, or blight and one of the other 2. A pretty powerful combo even into the mid teen levels and he can do it twice at higher levels though his big spell slots are limited.

I like the find familiar spell for an EK as a couple of others did. I also used the owl for his flyby (no attacks of opportunity) on the help action. It's a bit confusing that he can't attack on his own but you can attack through him with something like shocking grasp, which is a cool trick. I mostly wanted to comment on the fact that you don't have to waste a spell slot in a battle for this. You can cast it ahead of time. there is no time limit on it. You could cast it right before a rest and then rest and regain all slots and your familiar is with you until you dismiss it or it gets hit. Also they don't die. It's not a real animal but rather a fey, celestial (my choice) or fiend. When they get his they lose there corporeal form. Yes you loose them in that fight but you can summon them again later and it's the same fey, celestial or fiend in what ever form you summon them in. You would again cast it before a rest if you have any spell slots left and regain them all during your rest. I've used mine since third level and still do. I try not to over use him or use him in a predictable way so as to avoid ready actions. I've only had to re summon him once.

I chose booming blade and ray of frost for my first cantrips and shield, absorb elements and find familiar as my first 3 spells. I took protection from good and evil at 4th and changed out ray of frost for green flame blade. I also took thee magic initiate feat for some extra versatility choosing true strike and eldritch blast as my cantrips and hex as my spell. I eventually took shocking grasp as my last cantrip but have traded back and forth for blade ward as well as I test out different options.

some of the other spells I like are shatter, magic mirror, fireball, lightning bolt, enlarge or reduce, magic weapon, and greater invisibility. I've used several of these and would like to swap some out to try different things but I think they all play into how I think and EK should be played and that is to use your magic to set up your melee and your melee to set up your magic.

If they ever want to fix the EK I think they could do so by using one of the following ideas to fix the level 5 problem.

1- make green flame blade and booming blade bonus actions and increase the second target range of GFB just enough to make it more practical.

2- Give the EK an ability to make certain cantrips bonus actions. Word it so it's limited to certain cantrips that are directly tied to melee attacks. cantrips like Green flame blade, booming blade, true strike or blade ward would be included but things like ray of frost, frostbite or fire bolt would not.

3 - Make a couple of new cantrips with the EK as the main intended recipient.

I actually talked to my dm about home brewing a cantrip for our next game. My idea was this

Sun Sword
bonus action
range - touch

you cast a spell on a melee weapon which you hold in your hand and you must attack with it on the same turn or the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects and radiant energy leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 15 feet of it. The second creature takes radiant damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell's damage increases when you reach higher levels.

At higher level

At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 radiant damage to the target, and the radiant damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.


familiar I know but it fixes all the problems I see with green flame blade and booming blade. It's a bonus action that allows you to take your regular action and your extra attack, it increases the range of the damage to the second creature to 15 feet. Not an over powered spell but I have hardly ever seen 2 creatures within 5 feet of each other during a battle. and it's range is touch as you cast it on your weapon thus you could use a glaive, halberd, great ax or other reach weapon to it's full potential if that's what you typically fight with.

I'm not completely sure what to do about the second issue I have with the EK. I saw the dawnforgecast video on Eldritch Knight reforged on youtube and while I didn't care for redesigning the whole character build I did think about his manna pool idea. What if the EK could pool his spell slots and create a couple of higher slots. use two 3rds or a 4th and 2nd to get a 6th or a 4th and a 3rd to get a seventh. That would give him a couple of shots at truly helping out in the big boss fights at higher levels especially against creatures who aren't effected by lower magic. At the same time he doesn't have enough spell slots to over use this so he wouldn't become to powerful or change from what type of character he is.

[Coranhann]

Being a big fan of evil anagram and specter guides, I'd say : the whole thing comes really online at level 10 with hold person and Arcane strike (or whatever the name is for the 10th level archetype boon). Being able to hit with an attack, then paralyse your target to finally unload auto crit attacks is one of the main big edge of the EK.

Edit: and WOW that necro post :)