Ek?/at?

[ZorroGames]

Talking character builds and I was asked why I had Mountain/Hill Dwarf, Forest Gnome, Rock Gnome, and (one each type of Genasi) but never played a Deep Gnome. My dislike of Duergar or any monster race for PCs is well known in my group. Something I had never given thought to before that moment.

Thinking 🤔 about it I decided that a Fighter/Rogue would be different which led to thinking, “Why not an EK/AT character?

Access to four schools of spells plus racial spells might give the character good diversity of magic.

Your thoughts on such a character?

[Willie the Duck]

I like fighter-rogues and like each of those classes in isolation, so in theory I should be a proponent. There is an issue though.

The dominant problem is the way multiclassing with spellcasters rounds. Technically speaking (unless they've fixed the language in subsequent printings), the language of the MC rules actually omits the option of an EK/AT, however, the overall logic is clear: take your levels of EK and divide by three (rounding down), and then take your levels of AT and divide by three (rounding down) and add those together for your total spellcasting level. That means that a EK5/AT5 has the same spells slots as a 2nd level wizard. In fact, if you were a 5th level EK and started taking levels of rogue, leveling up from level 2 rogue to level 3 and choosing AT would actually drop your spells/day (worse still if you were EK 7 and actually lost access to 2nd level spell slots).

Mind you, most DMs would work with you in some way, but since we can't predict how, it's kind of hard to suggest the build.

[clash]

Eldritch knight 7 works very well with arcane tricker because war magic lets perform a cantrip with one attack. Sneak attack makes that single attack scale really well

[Foxhound438]

The classic fighter 11/ rogue x would probably do well, and I'd even look at taking fighter 13 for 3rd level slots. Probably stick to pure fighter for the most part, as getting extra attack at total level 5 is still pretty important, and then getting shadow blade with your fighter spells at 8th is another pretty big boost in potential damage, and then a third attack is right around the corner.

[djreynolds]

That would be a very good build.

Sounds crazy but I would begin fighter for the con saves, and later it allows you to pick up wisdom.
With evasion and maxed dex score, you don't need dex save proficiency and intelligence is like 5 spells, maybe.

8/15/14/14/12/8 becomes 8/16/14/16/12/8

I took urchin background, got survival, stealth, sleight of hand/perception and archery style.

For a dex based character (unless you are dead set on TWF) grab archery its a +2 bonus.... huge

Now you need to decide do you want war magic from EK7. And if you are fighting in melee with booming blade or using a bow... well with dex you can do both

Or do you want AT13 for mage hand for advantage

[Misterwhisper]

Depending on which will be the main side of things I would depart on even having a good int.

You could have all good defensive spells from EK, and attack cantrips and utility for AT.

First thing to do if decide which is the primary class.

Fighter 5 is great, 7 is even better.
Rogue is pretty solid and I will never turn down Reliable Talent.

I would go 12/8 if fighter primary, 13/7 if rogue primary.

Shield and rapier is nice or play an archer.

[Asmotherion]

Thoughts... From your description of generally disliking monster races and Duergar I don't think you'll find it too much fun roll playing this character. There will be a certain racial prejudice for whatever comes out of the underdark (same as if you were a monster race), and you might not want to deal with it.

That's more or less what I can think of. As for the build, you might want to be more specific as to what to want to accomplish with it for any meaningful feedback on my part. Magic is always better when you know what to do with it.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I like fighter-rogues and like each of those classes in isolation, so in theory I should be a proponent. There is an issue though.

The dominant problem is the way multiclassing with spellcasters rounds. Technically speaking (unless they've fixed the language in subsequent printings), the language of the MC rules actually omits the option of an EK/AT, however, the overall logic is clear: take your levels of EK and divide by three (rounding down), and then take your levels of AT and divide by three (rounding down) and add those together for your total spellcasting level. That means that a EK5/AT5 has the same spells slots as a 2nd level wizard. In fact, if you were a 5th level EK and started taking levels of rogue, leveling up from level 2 rogue to level 3 and choosing AT would actually drop your spells/day (worse still if you were EK 7 and actually lost access to 2nd level spell slots).

Mind you, most DMs would work with you in some way, but since we can't predict how, it's kind of hard to suggest the build.

Prety sure it calls them out in the MC rules for spellcasting. and you add the 1/3ds together i believe. So 5/5 is Ek/At is 3rd level fullcaster

[Willie the Duck]

Prety sure it calls them out in the MC rules for spellcasting. and you add the 1/3ds together i believe. So 5/5 is Ek/At is 3rd level fullcaster

In first printing, I know the phrasing was "Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster," so it really precluded you being both (:smalltongue:), but everyone understood.

As to whether you add together before dividing... I'd love to see the wording on it (or tweeted clarification). Either way, you still round down, which is annoying.

[Keravath]

I like fighter-rogues and like each of those classes in isolation, so in theory I should be a proponent. There is an issue though.

The dominant problem is the way multiclassing with spellcasters rounds. Technically speaking (unless they've fixed the language in subsequent printings), the language of the MC rules actually omits the option of an EK/AT, however, the overall logic is clear: take your levels of EK and divide by three (rounding down), and then take your levels of AT and divide by three (rounding down) and add those together for your total spellcasting level. That means that a EK5/AT5 has the same spells slots as a 2nd level wizard. In fact, if you were a 5th level EK and started taking levels of rogue, leveling up from level 2 rogue to level 3 and choosing AT would actually drop your spells/day (worse still if you were EK 7 and actually lost access to 2nd level spell slots).

Mind you, most DMs would work with you in some way, but since we can't predict how, it's kind of hard to suggest the build.

I don't agree with your interpretation ...

"Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric,
druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and
a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster
feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."

You are interpreting the above as taking 1/3 of each of the classes separately rounding down then adding. However, the text says "ALL" of your levels ... which can be interpreted to mean in each category which would mean summing all 1/3 caster levels and THEN divide (which honestly makes a lot more sense for edge cases like the ones you describe).

In this case, a level 7 EK/2 rogue who then takes another level of arcane trickster will have a 10/3 = level 3 spell casting ability and doesn't lose anything. Similarly, the 5EK/5AT will also be a level 3 spell caster (10/3) = 3 ... so they will have second level slots but no second level spells.

A 7 paladin/3 ranger would be 10/2 = level 5 caster ... not 3+1 = level 4.

[Willie the Duck]

which can be interpreted to mean in each category which would mean summing all 1/3 caster levels and THEN divide (which honestly makes a lot more sense for edge cases like the ones you describe).

I am not advocating for this interpretation, I am saying it exists. I assure you, it doesn't do me any favors. Virtually everything makes more sense, as well, but sense and RAW (extreme pedantry version) rarely mix. What also would have made sense would have been for them to have put in an algebraic formula (like "1/6*[6*full casters+3*(paladin+ranger)+2*(AT+EK)]" or something in the book.

I'm wondering if that version of the text is the original printing's, as I recall it being genuinely inscrutable, while the wording there is arguable each direction but seems to favor your interpretation. I do recall one of the devs (Mearls?) commenting on it. I believe he thought the book said one thing but the intent was the other direction, but now I can't find it.