Eldritch Knight and War Magic, the Quest for Unsuckiness

[Darksun]

Hi all.

I have some proposed changes to the Eldritch Knight.

So the spell casting is awesome. Certainly not as much as a half or a full caster but then given the fighter base, it shouldn’t be, fair enough.

Weapon bond is pretty good too.

Here is the problem, War Magic sucks. Improved War Magic is not bad, it is getting there but as a level 18 capstone, it is atrocious. It is too little too late.

Partially this is due to my decision to go dual wielding, but I see no reason why that shouldn’t be a legitimate option. The problem is forgoing all my attacks is almost never worth it to cast a cantrip. Baring some very situational times say if I need to forgo dps for more survivability, and even then it can often be better to keep the dps up and power through it.

I have seen one alternative where you only forgo one attack but with how cantrips scale up and the fact that being cantrips they never run out, this goes from being too weak to being too powerful. A cantrip will scale up to around four attacks worth of dps, obviously giving up one attack is a bargain, and being able to do that every round is op.

A spin on the above alternative was that that while still only sacrificing one attack, you could use it to cast anything but a cantrip. While this one has some good limitations (ie your spell slots), I really dislike the idea that cantrips are forbidden for no good reason other than game balance. It begs the question in narrative terms, why are the easiest cheapest spells excluded from this ability when the more complicated ones are not?

I have been thinking on this for a long time (a few months) and I just today think I may have come to a proposal which provides narrative sense, makes the ability worth using and perhaps most importantly maintains balance. If anything I think it may still be a little lackluster, but at least it has should have a bit more utility.

Basically my proposal would be the rule as standard. You give up all your attacks but one but we raise the level of what you can cast. This could be a separate table 'you can cast 1st level at this level, 2nd level at this level etc Or it could be tied to caster level, for an Eldritch Knight as a 1/3 caster that would mean the following: EK 3 = Cantrips, EK 4-6 = Lvl 1, ek 7-10 = Lvl 2 and so on. The numbers can easily be adjusted here, for example every 2nd level starting at level 3. I am particularly open to suggestion on exactly when the EK gains the ability to cast spells of a specified level using this feature.

At this point it still would not be worth my character giving up 3 attacks for a cantrip*, but it could potentially be worth it for some of the better spells. The great thing I feel is that you can cast a spell and essentially get a free attack on top of it, but it relies on the existing spell slot limitations so it won't give the EK an unlimited dps boost which as I mentioned above would be too powerful.

* An alternative here would be to mess with the definition of one attack. Seeing as I have two weapons, could I interpret it as “one attack each from both weapons” which may help to alleviate some of the compatibility issues with Dual Wielding which in of itself is also a bit weak compared to other options like GWF.

Please let me know what you think of the proposed changes frankly so I can take a more balanced and potentially unbiased suggestion to my dm.

[Cybren]

I don't see how war magic sucks, especially in a post SCAG world. In the levels between getting war magic and before your third attack, it's strictly better to use one of the melee cantrips (unless you want to use your bonus action for something else).

That there's anti-synergy with two weapon fighting is more the quirk of how two weapon fighting works in this edition. It's not great, but it's an issue more fundamental than just a subclass feature

[MeeposFire]

The trick with war magic is to pick a good cantrip (booming blade for melee and eldritch blast for ranged) and then improve your damage as best you can outside f extra attack.

For example fighter(ek)8/rogue12 (swash). This gets to use booming blade and rogue allows you to deal extra damage. Swashbuckler lets you walk away to help you get booming blade extra damage. Note that war magic allows you to get two chances at SA while getting bonus damage from booming blade.

Another example is fighter(ek)8/warlock2/rogue10. The ranged version. Deals more damage from the cantrip but only gets one chance a turn at SA damage. Otherwise very similar. You can take crossbow expert to let you use EB in melee.

[bid]

Here is the problem, War Magic sucks. Improved War Magic is not bad, it is getting there but as a level 18 capstone, it is atrocious. It is too little too late.
It's more that TWF sucks in 5e with that "must use attack action" limitation.

But it's not that bad, you do at most 3 damage less than a dueling fighter using war magic (1 for 1d6 weapon, 2 for dueling style). So, ask that DW gives you a +1 hit/damage to war magic bonus attack. That should be fair enough.

[Darksun]

I don't see how war magic sucks, especially in a post SCAG world. In the levels between getting war magic and before your third attack, it's strictly better to use one of the melee cantrips (unless you want to use your bonus action for something else).

That there's anti-synergy with two weapon fighting is more the quirk of how two weapon fighting works in this edition. It's not great, but it's an issue more fundamental than just a subclass feature



That is exactly the ground I am in.

I give up 3x d8+4 attacks to do 2d10. Every time the cantrip goes up in damage, I will also get an extra attack and the disparity just gets worse. Even a d6 weapon still does more damage. That is with 16 strength and +1 weapons. It is also worth noting that this is comparing it to the highest damaging cantrip, Fire Bolt which will also be subject to resistance far more than physical damage unless the dm is in the habit of giving out Heavy Armour Master.

The ability modifier on the damage makes all the difference. The only way a cantrip keeps up is a Warlock with Eldritch Blast with the Agonizing Blast invocation. or with especially low damage weapons.

It might be fine if cantrips like Bladeward ran for more than 1 round it would be worth sacrifcing a round of dps but as the non damage cantrips however don't tend to scale up then they quickly become largely pointless to use (or at least very situational) because at higher levels of play they simply won't do enough.

I wasn't really intending to address the anti-synergy of TWF. It just came up as I was writing the post. Maybe there is some merit in the general "single attack = single attack with each weapon" but I am not sure it is within the scope of this thread or my expertise to really explore that to find out if it has merit or not.

I have SCAG but I have not read the whole thing. Which part in particular are you referring to?


The trick with war magic is to pick a good cantrip (booming blade for melee and eldritch blast for ranged) and then improve your damage as best you can outside f extra attack.

For example fighter(ek)8/rogue12 (swash). This gets to use booming blade and rogue allows you to deal extra damage. Swashbuckler lets you walk away to help you get booming blade extra damage. Note that war magic allows you to get two chances at SA while getting bonus damage from booming blade.

Another example is fighter(ek)8/warlock2/rogue10. The ranged version. Deals more damage from the cantrip but only gets one chance a turn at SA damage. Otherwise very similar. You can take crossbow expert to let you use EB in melee.

Not familiar with Booming Blade, I just googled it. Hesitant to say too much but it still looks like it would be a dps drop, even assuming the creature always moves, until it hits level 11. Then it may prove worthwhile. Less confident commenting much more than that without working out the maths.

Your ranged version looks interesting.

Though it is notable that both require multiclassing to make them work. Not sure if that contests my original stance, if a class ability requires other classes to work well.

[Cybren]

I have SCAG but I have not read the whole thing. Which part in particular are you referring to?

Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade: both let you make a weapon attack for your normal damage + a rider, + scaling damage with levels like all cantrips. So you can cast it as an action to make a melee attack, and use war magic to make a melee attack. If you aren't planning on using your bonus action and only have two attacks, it's better in many cases to cast one of those.

[MaxWilson]

Though it is notable that both require multiclassing to make them work. Not sure if that contests my original stance, if a class ability requires other classes to work well.

Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade don't require multiclassing to work. They are on the wizard spell list. Both of them pretty much look exactly how you'd design a cantrip to make War Magic useful.

Assuming Dex 20, Int 14 and Dual-Wielding feat + fighting style, dual rapiers, and neglecting to-hit:

Level 8, regular attacks: you can do 3x d8+5 = 28.5
Level 8, Greenflame Blade: you can do (2d8+5 + d8+2 to a second target) plus d8+5 = 30 damage, plus you can use a shield for extra AC.

Level 11, regular attacks: 4x d8+5 = 38 damage.
Level 11, Greenflame Blade: (3d8+5 + 2d8+2 to a second target) plus d8+5 = 39 damage, plus again you get to use a shield.

Level 17, regular attacks: 4x d8+5 = 38 damage
Level 17, Greenflame Blade: (4d8+5 + 3d8+2 to a second target) plus d8+5 = 48 damage, plus the shield thing.

So, War Magic basically gets you get the benefits of dual wielding (in certain situations) without having to give up a shield. That's especially great if you are e.g. primarily an archer, because you get to be good in melee without actually specializing in it.

[Darksun]

It's more that TWF sucks in 5e with that "must use attack action" limitation.

But it's not that bad, you do at most 3 damage less than a dueling fighter using war magic (1 for 1d6 weapon, 2 for dueling style). So, ask that DW gives you a +1 hit/damage to war magic bonus attack. That should be fair enough.

I was aware that GWF did more damage with power attack, but does dueling with nothing in your off hand also add more dps than TWF? Dueling should have it's advantage but dps??

I have been looking into TWF discussions but haven't found much conclusive. Is it problematic and if so are there generally accepted fixes kinda thing.


Booming Blade/Greenflame Blade don't require multiclassing to work. They are on the wizard spell list. Both of them pretty much look exactly how you'd design a cantrip to make War Magic useful.

Assuming Dex 20, Int 14 and Dual-Wielding feat + fighting style, dual rapiers, and neglecting to-hit:

Level 8, regular attacks: you can do 3x d8+5 = 28.5
Level 8, Greenflame Blade: you can do (2d8+5 + d8+2 to a second target) plus d8+5 = 30 damage, plus you can use a shield for extra AC.

Level 11, regular attacks: 4x d8+5 = 38 damage.
Level 11, Greenflame Blade: (3d8+5 + 2d8+2 to a second target) plus d8+5 = 39 damage, plus again you get to use a shield.

Level 17, regular attacks: 4x d8+5 = 38 damage
Level 17, Greenflame Blade: (4d8+5 + 3d8+2 to a second target) plus d8+5 = 48 damage, plus the shield thing.

So, War Magic basically gets you get the benefits of dual wielding (in certain situations) without having to give up a shield. That's especially great if you are e.g. primarily an archer, because you get to be good in melee without actually specializing in it.

Both his examples used multiclassing, that is what I was referring. Both need those other classes to work in that fashion. I wasn't speaking generally.

I checked out Greenflame Blade. That isn't bad at all. Seems I need to make time to read through the magic section of SCAG. I will certainly try that before I suggest any changes. Though it would be nice if War Magic was more generally useful, and not reliant one one or two specific spells. I would argue that at best they are making a subpar ability acceptable, and only for dps.

I doubt I will go with a shield at this point. I have already invested in TWF, while I could probably convince the dm to allow me to respec, it doesn't fit my my character concept. However, it sounds like it would be good enough for a backup if I need to get more tanky on the odd occasion.

[bid]

I was aware that GWF did more damage with power attack, but does dueling with nothing in your off hand also add more dps than TWF? Dueling should have it's advantage but dps??
At level 1, you had 1d6 extra damage over dueling. At level 5 you still had 1d6-2 extra damage. At level 11 dueling catches up since 1d6-4 is near 0, but why not get DW and return to 1d8 extra damage?

TWF is good for non-fighter classes who will not get a 3rd attack. It's also very good at level 1-4. You can't expect it to always be the best.

Remember that BB is a passing fad, once you reach level 11 war magic does not add enough Dex mod to matter. You maybe get 1 rider per fight.

Remember also that your DM doesn't mind if your party does 5 or 50 damage per round, he will adjust his encounters to match. Just stick to your concept and have fun.

[Foxhound438]

blade ward, true strike. Neither would be a go-to in any situation, but they're legit options if a) you need to tank harder or b) you need to hit something with AC way higher than you can consistently hit.

[MaxWilson]

blade ward, true strike. Neither would be a go-to in any situation, but they're legit options if a) you need to tank harder or b) you need to hit something with AC way higher than you can consistently hit.

True Strike + attack is worse than just making two attacks in almost every conceivable circumstance. The only time it is actually helpful is when cancelling disadvantage.

[MeeposFire]

True Strike + attack is worse than just making two attacks in almost every conceivable circumstance. The only time it is actually helpful is when cancelling disadvantage.

I also think it only works on the round after you cast it so if this was your standard tactic you would need to plan ahead to use it because unlike most spells you don't get the benefit right after casting it.

So for instance if you are given disadvantage on attacks then true strike will not help you land an attack that round since it will only apply to the next round and also note that if the disadvantage only applies that round then you should not use true strike since it won't do anything when you need it (unless you think that the disadvantage will be applied again).

[MaxWilson]

I also think it only works on the round after you cast it so if this was your standard tactic you would need to plan ahead to use it because unlike most spells you don't get the benefit right after casting it.

So for instance if you are given disadvantage on attacks then true strike will not help you land an attack that round since it will only apply to the next round and also note that if the disadvantage only applies that round then you should not use true strike since it won't do anything when you need it (unless you think that the disadvantage will be applied again).

I know. It's like they went out of their way to make it useless in every conceivable way.

(1) Concentration
(2) Range: only 30'
(3) Only works on the following round
(4) Requires a full action

Did I miss anything?

I would honestly be fine with letting a player choose any one of the above restrictions and eliminating it. You want a bonus action True Strike? Okay, but it takes your concentration and you have to choose the target on the round before and it's only 30'.

[mgshamster]

I know. It's like they went out of their way to make it useless in every conceivable way.

(1) Concentration
(2) Range: only 30'
(3) Only works on the following round
(4) Requires a full action

Did I miss anything?

I would honestly be fine with letting a player choose any one of the above restrictions and eliminating it. You want a bonus action True Strike? Okay, but it takes your concentration and you have to choose the target on the round before and it's only 30'.

That's an interesting take. "Choose a target; next round you may cast this spell as a bonus action and immediately gain the effects for an attack that same round. Concentration rules apply from now until you make your attack."

Conversely, it works normal but has no range limit, so you cast it on round 1, then on round 2 you can fire an arrow or something.

[MaxWilson]

That's an interesting take. "Choose a target; next round you may cast this spell as a bonus action and immediately gain the effects for an attack that same round. Concentration rules apply from now until you make your attack."

It's simpler to just make them spend the bonus action now. "On your next turn, if True Strike has not ended, gain advantage on your first attack roll against the target, and then the spell ends." Everything is just like it is today except that the spell is a bonus action instead of an action.

[Malifice]

Shocking grasp has its uses for avoiding AOO. Minor illusion has its uses for creative players.

Personally if I was playing an EK I would never TWF or S and B. Makes spellcasting much more difficult. Any spell with a material component is out. 2 handers and polearms rule the roost.

With a greatsword and GFB you can do some OK damage. 4d6 + 1d8 plus ability mod and 1d8 plus ability mod splash is strictly better than 4d6 + ability mod + ability mod. Booming blade isn't too bad either.

[MaxWilson]

RE: War Magic, I forgot to mention my favorite tactical exploit.

Precondition: Some bonus actions are restricted as to what order you have to take actions on your turn, e.g. the monk's Flurry of Blows says you can use it "immediately after" an attack action. War Magic, like Shield Master or the monk's Martial Arts, just says "when". The game designers have indicated that this difference is intended, and that you're intended to be able to take the bonus action at the start of your turn. The exploit relies on your DM agreeing.

Bonus action: throw a net.
Action: cast Greenflame Blade/Booming Blade.

If your net hits, the target will be restrained. Not only will you get advantage on your Greenflame/Booming Blade attack, but your target will have to spend an action or a slashing attack taking off the net or else still be restrained next round. (Some monsters don't even have slashing attacks.) And all your buddies will have advantage too.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Warlock 2 with Eldritch Knight, which already gives you an extremely effective ranged attack option (1-4*(1d10+cha) from the EB and 1d10+dex from a heavy crossbow) also works very well with the Undying Light Warlock (which gives +Cha to fire and radiant damage from spells) and greenflame blade, which should at the very least be competitive with just attacking.


At 20th, assuming no magic weapon, rapier and dueling style, and dex and cha both at 20 (this and many EK builds can happily dump int), with ULlock 2/EK 7/Rogue 11:

Ranged: 4(1d10+5) from the EB, 1d10+5 from Xbow, 6d6 from SA - 42+10.5+21=73.5 Average damage (assuming SA and all attacks hit), compared to 42 average damage from a 20th level EK just plinking with his heavy crossbow (assuming he has Crossbow Expert and all attacks hit).

Melee: 2(1d8+7) from both Rapier hits (1 from GFB, 1 from War Magic), 3d8+5 to both primary and secondary targets from GFB, 6d6 from SA - 23+18.5+21=53.5 Average Damage to primary, and another 18.5 to secondary (assuming SA, all attacks hit, no fire resistance, secondary target available, and Radiant Soul only applies to the primary damage roll), compared to 46 average damage from a 20th level EK hitting with his Rapier (Assuming all attacks hit)

Feats and Magic Weapons do even the gap somewhat, but the War Magic build remains competitive.

[CaptAl]

It seems the problem is dual wielding weapons here, not war magic. War magic works well for everything but two weapon fighting, specifically due to competition for the bonus action. It's a choice you have to make. Either cast and slash, or slash X3. Same issue that rogues have with two weapon fighting for extra sneak attack chances vs. hiding/disengaging with Cunning Action.

Two Weapon fighting just isn't optimal. Not for rogues (excepting swashbucklers rogues are better off as archers), not for fighters after obtaining extra attack (EK or otherwise). It's flavorful and can work, but requires certain sacrifices for the flavor.

[Regulas]

Want a really simple simple fix? Play a "Paladin" and just call it an EK. Honestly this is far closer to what an EK should be anyway. Not only do you get huge huge volumes of damage but you also still get some special/bonus effects.


Really though since the PHB was released a number of new cantrips were created more or less explicitly to try and fix how mediocre War Magic is. Without them then indeed War Magic is highly questionable, since cantrip scaling fails to account for stat bonus dmg and magic weapons, mostly relegated to niche uses where the bonus effect is critical. It's still kind of a hack fix though that doesn't really address the issue.

In general it looks like the two main designers for the PHB rules had differing standers for what's strong and what's weak, hence how you get EK and Beastmaster on one side and Paladin on the other.

[Vogonjeltz]

It might be fine if cantrips like Bladeward ran for more than 1 round it would be worth sacrifcing a round of dps but as the non damage cantrips however don't tend to scale up then they quickly become largely pointless to use (or at least very situational) because at higher levels of play they simply won't do enough.

Bladeward does run two turns. It's until the end of your next turn. So it's effective against opportunity attacks on both turns, for example.


RE: War Magic, I forgot to mention my favorite tactical exploit.

Precondition: Some bonus actions are restricted as to what order you have to take actions on your turn, e.g. the monk's Flurry of Blows says you can use it "immediately after" an attack action. War Magic, like Shield Master or the monk's Martial Arts, just says "when". The game designers have indicated that this difference is intended, and that you're intended to be able to take the bonus action at the start of your turn. The exploit relies on your DM agreeing.

Bonus action: throw a net.
Action: cast Greenflame Blade/Booming Blade.

If your net hits, the target will be restrained. Not only will you get advantage on your Greenflame/Booming Blade attack, but your target will have to spend an action or a slashing attack taking off the net or else still be restrained next round. (Some monsters don't even have slashing attacks.) And all your buddies will have advantage too.

Technically it actually goes as:

You take the Attack action, you then take the Bonus action at any time in the resolution of that Attack action.

i.e. Attack action->Bonus action before making actual attacks->attacks, or make 1 attack, then bonus, etc...

So it's very flexible, but intentionally so, not an exploit.