How unbalancing would it be to drop school restricion from 1/3 casters?

[KOLE]

Question!

I love Rogues. I love Fighters. I love full casters.

I don't like AT or EK. The spell list restriction is finicky and annoying. It also feels like its forcing flavor on me. With just how limited their spell slots are, is there anything that would negatively effect balance by just dropping the school restriction completely?

[Kyutaru]

I dunno. Would anything be negatively affected by dropping weapon restrictions too?

Quid pro quo.

[Kane0]

Nothing gamebreaking really. You're looking at a marginal impact mechanically speaking.

[OvisCaedo]

Maybe, maybe not. Someone who's actually built one could probably tell you a lot more about what kinds of stuff they WANTED to take but couldn't.

From an off the cuff guess at the design side, though, I'd say... the school restrictions probably have a meaningful purpose, and that's to try and restrict a bit what new options a character might get to excel at that are supposed to be outside of their class's strengths. Of course, the slot progression is slow enough that perhaps this isn't REALLY a major problem. Rogues aren't really meant to excel at dealing with multiple targets at once, so getting 'easy' access to fireball would be silly, but... they also don't really even GET access to that until character level 13, and it represents a pretty dramatic step up in effectiveness over 1st and 2nd level spells of the type. And even now, they could take it at 14 instead, which isn't so big a gap.

So, again, I dunno! They might be limited enough that it's not really a balance concern at all, even if I can see where the concern MIGHT come from on a design side. You'd probably need someone much more analytical to really squint at the possible effects here.

[Jerrykhor]

I think might be for the best. I have been analyzing EK for a bit, didn't like their design at all. The restrictive spell school sounds fine, until you look at the list, and there's hardly a reason to take anything other than the usual same spells. Its not even about whether a spell is good or not. Theres only 6 1st level Abjuration spells, and the EK can really only use Shield/Absorb Elements.

Also, everyone i talked to seems to think EKs are half casters for some reason.

I say got for it. EKs only have access to level 1 and 2 spells for a reeeeeaaallly long time. And none of them are gamebreaking.

[suplee215]

I don't think it will break the game but will it add much? you already have a few options for any spell outside the limit. Sure, every EK takes shield and absorb elements. Is that going to change? While they both might have a few more ASIs to pump stats they're still not often going to have high intelligence needed to make use of a full wizard spell list.

[elyktsorb]

The only thing I think of would be getting pass without trace without messing up your rogue levels which would basically make you a master of stealth.

[Eragon123]

The only thing I think of would be getting pass without trace without messing up your rogue levels which would basically make you a master of stealth.

Pass Without Trace isn't a Wizard Spell. So lifting the school restriction would not allow for this.

[ciopo]

I don't see an AT or EK having time to study willy nilly from all the schools, it is in part already represented with the EK 2-3 spells that can be picked from the whole list, it represent the individual EK expressing his preference and thus researching his favourite spell.

Rather than lifting the school restriction completely, I see it very thematic and easy to reflavour that at third level, the EK chooses two schools, rather than having evocation and abjuration forced on him.

Same for the AT.

This way, there is a much broader player choice but still limited to two schools + favourites instead of pick and choice from all options.

a caveat of "no opposing schools" might also make sense.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the main reason for the restriction is to maintain the theming of the subclasses rather than a balancing decision. Their spell progression is already delayed enough behind full casters that it wouldn't be too disruptive if at all, my guess is most people wouldn't notice but the AT/EK player would have more fun.

[Garresh]

The restriction is based off of flavor, not balance. It won't break anything to remove it, but depending on build it will be a small power increase. Not enough to worry over though.

[Arkhios]

Also, everyone i talked to seems to think EKs are half casters for some reason.


Don't know where it's coming from, but I think the misconception has at least something to do with that all spellcasters* gain equal amount of spell slots for the first 3 spell levels. After that, the difference between a half-caster and AT/EK is marginal.

*Intentionally omitting Warlock because technically they're not spellcasters, but "pact casters" :smallamused:

[ad_hoc]

Question!

I love Rogues. I love Fighters. I love full casters.

I don't like AT or EK. The spell list restriction is finicky and annoying. It also feels like its forcing flavor on me. With just how limited their spell slots are, is there anything that would negatively effect balance by just dropping the school restriction completely?

Everything in the game is 'forcing flavour'.

You can get rid of all the restrictions if you want but then you just end up with a 'mush' rather than a thematic game.

[Jerrykhor]

Don't know where it's coming from, but I think the misconception has at least something to do with that all spellcasters* gain equal amount of spell slots for the first 3 spell levels. After that, the difference between a half-caster and AT/EK is marginal.

*Intentionally omitting Warlock because technically they're not spellcasters, but "pact casters" :smallamused:

Funny thing is, I myself at one point also thought they were, or at least i thought they would get their 3rd level spells much earlier than level 13. Maybe its because at level 11, almost everyone gets a major power spike, so we naturally assumed that EKs get theirs too. They really have too little magic for my taste.

[Xrposiedon]

I would say it would be pretty unbalanced with lots of unforeseen consequences until its too late to go back...you are a fighter, who already gets lots and lots of ASI / Feats. If you would open it up to other pools things get very crazy.

Now, I am not sure if you typically role for stats or do the point buy:

In a game that you roll for stats and end up having everyone at the table with +5 in their main stats (which for some reason happens way too often with rolling); it probably wouldn't be too much of a big deal power wise. It would however, minimize the meaningfulness of going bard for magical secrets, or being a cleric/druid for heals and cure disease etc.

At a regularly scaled stat game where everyone is lower power, having an extra d6 for damage is incredible. The absurdity comes from how much you can stack debuffs, disables, or otherwise broken combos.

EXAMPLES:

A fighter who can cast pass without a trace can do the rogues job of a scout mission.
A fighter who can cast hex, now does some insane damage if they feat'd out and went for a hand crossbow build.
A rogue or a fighter who casts heat metal can now devastate a big bad guy wearing armor from a far with little consequence.
Shadow Blade gives a fighter a now 2d8 psychic damage sword that they can go action surge and murder.
Animate Dead --- Free Cannon Fodder as you mull through enemies.
Rogue hiding in a corner, counterspell at a key moment...is absolutely game changing.
How about casting haste on yourself as a rogue or fighter.

I think you can get the point. All of the above was just a quick glance at the list of spells out there from lvls 1-3. It has too many unintended consequences to risk it IMO.

[Arkhios]

I would say it would be pretty unbalanced with lots of unforeseen consequences until its too late to go back...you are a fighter, who already gets lots and lots of ASI / Feats. If you would open it up to other pools things get very crazy.

Now, I am not sure if you typically role for stats or do the point buy:

In a game that you roll for stats and end up having everyone at the table with +5 in their main stats (which for some reason happens way too often with rolling); it probably wouldn't be too much of a big deal power wise. It would however, minimize the meaningfulness of going bard for magical secrets, or being a cleric/druid for heals and cure disease etc.

At a regularly scaled stat game where everyone is lower power, having an extra d6 for damage is incredible. The absurdity comes from how much you can stack debuffs, disables, or otherwise broken combos.

EXAMPLES:

A fighter who can cast pass without a trace can do the rogues job of a scout mission.
A fighter who can cast hex, now does some insane damage if they feat'd out and went for a hand crossbow build.
A rogue or a fighter who casts heat metal can now devastate a big bad guy wearing armor from a far with little consequence.
Shadow Blade gives a fighter a now 2d8 psychic damage sword that they can go action surge and murder.
Animate Dead --- Free Cannon Fodder as you mull through enemies.
Rogue hiding in a corner, counterspell at a key moment...is absolutely game changing.
How about casting haste on yourself as a rogue or fighter.

I think you can get the point. All of the above was just a quick glance at the list of spells out there from lvls 1-3. It has too many unintended consequences to risk it IMO.

Spell School ≠ Spell List.

These are very different things. The question isn't whether you should open up more spell lists, but rather should you remove the spell school restriction. Between Wizard's spell list and AT/EK (arguably) arbitrary school restriction, they can still choose a few spells outside those schools. Since AT/EK already know only a fairly limited number of spells, I think the restrictions are redundant especially because you can already learn those spells (except Heat Metal and Hex which aren't on a Wizard's spell list).

[Kane0]

Hell, even swapping one spell list for another wouldn't be that broken. I've seen threads asking about an EK but druid list instead, and generally people are fine with that too.

Opening up all spells ala Bardic secrets is a different matter however.

[Kyutaru]

Hell, even removing all restrictions and letting people build their own isn't unbalanced either. Because ultimately splatbooks and new classes end up doing precisely that. The more content that gets released for a game the more options there are that are merely existing classes recombined.

Want to trade your nature magic for warlock spirit powers and still be able to transform into animals? Fine, you're now a Werewolf Shaman. Enjoy.

[Kane0]

Hell, even removing all restrictions and letting people build their own isn't unbalanced either. Because ultimately splatbooks and new classes end up doing precisely that. The more content that gets released for a game the more options there are that are merely existing classes recombined.

Want to trade your nature magic for warlock spirit powers and still be able to transform into animals? Fine, you're now a Werewolf Shaman. Enjoy.

I like the way you think. You're gonna go far, kid.

[Zhorn]

I would say it would be pretty unbalanced with lots of unforeseen consequences until its too late to go back...you are a fighter, who already gets lots and lots of ASI / Feats. If you would open it up to other pools things get very crazy.
...
EXAMPLES:

A fighter who can cast pass without a trace can do the rogues job of a scout mission.
A fighter who can cast hex, now does some insane damage if they feat'd out and went for a hand crossbow build.
A rogue or a fighter who casts heat metal can now devastate a big bad guy wearing armor from a far with little consequence.
Shadow Blade gives a fighter a now 2d8 psychic damage sword that they can go action surge and murder.
Animate Dead --- Free Cannon Fodder as you mull through enemies.
Rogue hiding in a corner, counterspell at a key moment...is absolutely game changing.
How about casting haste on yourself as a rogue or fighter.

I think you can get the point. All of the above was just a quick glance at the list of spells out there from lvls 1-3. It has too many unintended consequences to risk it IMO.

Since spells 1-3 are not on the wizards spell list to begin with, those won't be a concern.
Hex is already possible via magic initiate, so the wizard list and school restriction has no bearing on that.
The other spell that are on the wizard list already are obtainable by ATs and EKs as is. levels 3,8,14 and 20 all have a non school restricted pick from the wizard list.

back on topic
Personally I think a 2 school limit for each subclass should be maintained.
BUT if a player asked to pick which two schools, I'd let them.
Want unrestricted? Get some wizard levels.

[some guy]

In my house-rules I allow EK's to also pick from the Transmutation school and AT's from the Conjuration, but nobody has played those sub-classes yet in my games. I might just lift the restriction completely.
Players can already pick certain spells at specific levels, so the only thing is they get the spells they really want earlier and I don't think that's a problem.

[Spiritchaser]

This would allow an EK to take rituals like find familiar and identify while still taking the few other off-school spells they might want. Small but meaningful power increase, greater in those parties with no ritual caster.

It *very slightly* takes something from wizards (those over privileged softies don’t know how good they have it!)

Which is almost enough reason to do it right there.

Grumble

[jaappleton]

It’s not unbalanced to drop it. It’s a stupid restriction. They get so few spell slots that having such a restriction is both pointless and stupid.

[ciopo]

It’s not unbalanced to drop it. It’s a stupid restriction. They get so few spell slots that having such a restriction is both pointless and stupid.

It is conceptually no different a restriction than the cleric spell list and the wizard spell list being two separate entities.

Why does an EK know less spells / is limited to two schools for most of them? Because fluffwise that is what he trained in.

Changing the two schools to be something else is easy to refluff, the order of dastardly awesome mageknights are EK that specialize in enchantment and illusion, easily palatable.

Why is there this 2 school restriction in the first place... I understand they are complementary to the role, I also understandit's a fluff point about how a fighter doesn't have the same amount of time to learn up his magic shtick while keeping to his training.

fluff being fluff, do away with it if you don't like it, personally I find it fits a theme to keep the limitation, but maybe change the schools up , the above mentioned refluff :)

[stoutstien]

This would allow an EK to take rituals like find familiar and identify while still taking the few other off-school spells they might want. Small but meaningful power increase, greater in those parties with no ritual caster.

It *very slightly* takes something from wizards (those over privileged softies don’t know how good they have it!)

Which is almost enough reason to do it right there.

Grumble

Ek and AT dont have ritual casting as a feature so it wouldn't help much.

[JackPhoenix]

This would allow an EK to take rituals like find familiar and identify while still taking the few other off-school spells they might want. Small but meaningful power increase, greater in those parties with no ritual caster.

It *very slightly* takes something from wizards (those over privileged softies don’t know how good they have it!)

Which is almost enough reason to do it right there.

Grumble

Not that it would do them much good, as they wouldn't be able to cast those spells as rituals anyway.

[Spiritchaser]

Not that it would do them much good, as they wouldn't be able to cast those spells as rituals anyway.

Fair enough

[Bjarkmundur]

achoo!! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585827-Creative-Eldritch-Knight-Reflavours&highlight=reflavour+eldritch)
Sorry, allergies.

The real question is, what's really the difference between an EK and a Wizard/Fighter Multiclass, and what's the reason for that difference?

[Man_Over_Game]

I wouldn't say unbalancing. I'd say it'd be pretty generic. There's already not a lot of difference between a Dex fighter and a Dex rogue, and now that difference would be shrinking.

I'd be more accepting of swapping out the spell lists. I've always been a big fan of removing Abjuration and Evocation from Fighters in place of Transmutation and Conjuration. So rather than Fighters being generic warriors with Shield, Counterspell and Evocation cantrips, they have a plethora of teleports, buffs, and battlefield control to best use their physical prowess.

It'd make "Eldritch Knights" have a broader identity than "Fighter with Shield".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, to the question at hand, it would end up making things a bit more generic. AT's focused on single-target debuffs or things that improve their stealth capabilities, EK's focused on scaling, low cost spells that don't require any intelligence (both from the mechanical, and the literal definition).

[AdAstra]

achoo!! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?585827-Creative-Eldritch-Knight-Reflavours&highlight=reflavour+eldritch)
Sorry, allergies.

The real question is, what's really the difference between an EK and a Wizard/Fighter Multiclass, and what's the reason for that difference?

The EK allows you to get that Wizard spellcasting without sacrificing any of the features of the base Fighter class, while also getting some neat features that help cement the feel of a Fighter with Magic, like casting cantrips/spells and attacking, or giving disadvantage to saves with weapon strikes. A fighter 13/wizard 7 would for the most part be a significantly weaker version. You could treat it as instead of giving up fighter levels for wizard levels, you're giving up your subclass for wizard features, plus some exclusive extras. Kinda like some things you could do in 3rd/pathfinder, exchanging certain class features for others.

EDIT: Just kinda realized this is a very important point to consider. You shouldn't be comparing Eldritch Knights to spellcasters, you need to compare them to other Fighter Archetypes. As is Eldritch Knights get quite a lot, especially at higher levels, when compared to say, Battlemasters or Champions.

[OverLordOcelot]

My house rule is that the EK and AT have to pick two schools, but can pick any two (and still get the 'no school restriction' picks like before). This gives them more options while keeping the 'limited caster' feel; you can have an arcane trickster who does defense instead of enchantment or Eldritch Knight who does more self-buffs than blowing things up, but they still don't get to do everything. Abjuration is probably the best school overall (which EKs get anyway) and transmutation is better for EKs than evocation, but not enough better that even what I'd consider the optimal combination has anything that really worries me (and transmutation fits better, spells like magic weapon, enlarge/reduce, misty step make more sense to me than magic missile, shatter, and fireball). Also the single 'any school' picks already let them get anything that might really qualify as overpowered, and I don't really see any power creep problems from this.

[Nagog]

Everything in the game is 'forcing flavour'.

You can get rid of all the restrictions if you want but then you just end up with a 'mush' rather than a thematic game.

Nothing in the game is "Forcing Flavor", at least not in 5e. I make it a point to try playing a class with the flavor of another one. A Warlock that plays like a Ranger, a Palading that plays like a Barbarian, etc. Restricting the schools of magic that these subclasses have access to limits the versatility and flavor of these characters. For example, the Magus class in Pathfinder is highly versatile because it is essentially an Eldritch Knight without school restrictions, so you can make a Warrior that has dabbled in Necromancy, an Archer that dabbles in Divination, etc. Current school restrictions limit the flavor and fun of these subclasses. I would be many times more interested in playing an Arcane Trickster if I could delve into Conjuration with it, and use flanking with summoned allies to boost my Stealth Attack output. I'd love to have a character that is in essence a PC Death Knight, complete with Create Undead. But as it stands, such combinations are difficult and require a lot of levels to invest into multiple classes requiring a wide variety of base stats, and are no longer worth the effort.

[OverLordOcelot]

I would be many times more interested in playing an Arcane Trickster if I could delve into Conjuration with it, and use flanking with summoned allies to boost my Stealth Attack output. I'd love to have a character that is in essence a PC Death Knight, complete with Create Undead. But as it stands, such combinations are difficult and require a lot of levels to invest into multiple classes requiring a wide variety of base stats, and are no longer worth the effort.

I want to note that the two examples you listed are not the result of school restrictions. An arcane trickster can use their 'any school' spell to pick up find familiar once they can cast spells, and conjure minor elementals at endgame, which gives them all of the summoned allies they can get with wizard spells that they can get. Similarly, an Eldritch Knight can't get Animate Dead at all, as it's a 5th level spell, and can pick up a necromancy spell at each level that they can cast. You need to go significantly further than removing school restrictions to get either of those effects from AT or EK.

[Nagog]

I want to note that the two examples you listed are not the result of school restrictions. An arcane trickster can use their 'any school' spell to pick up find familiar once they can cast spells, and conjure minor elementals at endgame, which gives them all of the summoned allies they can get with wizard spells that they can get. Similarly, an Eldritch Knight can't get Animate Dead at all, as it's a 5th level spell, and can pick up a necromancy spell at each level that they can cast. You need to go significantly further than removing school restrictions to get either of those effects from AT or EK.

Point being, enforcing how you play your 1/3 caster is restrictive and unnecessary. Personally, I feel Eldritch Knight should be able to pick up some social spells to give them something to do outside of combat rather than just stacking their dice. Restricting the spells they can choose to conform to an expected playstyle feels a lot like Pathfinder, which, due to it's lack of subclasses, had fairly railroaded classes into expected playstyles.

[Arkhios]

Point being, enforcing how you play your 1/3 caster is restrictive and unnecessary. Personally, I feel Eldritch Knight should be able to pick up some social spells to give them something to do outside of combat rather than just stacking their dice. Restricting the spells they can choose to conform to an expected playstyle feels a lot like Pathfinder, which, due to it's lack of subclasses, had fairly railroaded classes into expected playstyles.

Uhh...? I guess you've only played Pathfinder with the Core Rulebook, because Pathfinder has like a hundred or so of archetypes (=similar to sub-classes in all but name) for all 30+ classes they've introduced over the years with supplementary books, starting with the very next book after Core Rulebook and the first Bestiary (Advanced Players Guide). Admittedly, after 4th edition had come out with the general idea of different class builds for different focus in role.

[djreynolds]

Not one bit.

I would allow fighters to grab even stuff like elemental weapon, why do only paladins get this spell? At 13th level, is this game breaking

I mean some paladins even get the ranger's hunter's mark.

I might even be inclined to make little bonus domain/school spell lists. I would love to see an elemental eldritch knight, or ice knight or fire knight.

Maybe an illusion knight, or enchantment knight

Every class with known spells gets seriously jerked around.

Seriously, I never see threads on how to fix the paladin or cleric class.

I see "complaint" threads on fighters, fighter subclasses, rogues, rogue subclasses, rangers, and monks.

IMO, if a player has a concept, let them go for it.

[Nagog]

Uhh...? I guess you've only played Pathfinder with the Core Rulebook, because Pathfinder has like a hundred or so of archetypes (=similar to sub-classes in all but name) for all 30+ classes they've introduced over the years with supplementary books, starting with the very next book after Core Rulebook and the first Bestiary (Advanced Players Guide). Admittedly, after 4th edition had come out with the general idea of different class builds for different focus in role.

I have played with archtypes, and they're still very railroaded into one playstyle. Variety does not equate versatility. Once again, that's not the point. Point being the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster would be much more viable if they didn't have their spell class restrictions. If you have a point to refute how they do not restrict these subclasses into a specific role or playstyle, let's discuss that. If you want to discuss how you feel I'm wrong in my opinion of Pathfinder, create a new post and talk about it there.

[Yakk]

More options are almost always the most powerful thing you can give a character.

I'd guess that making them a *half caster* would have less of an improvement on their capability than removing subschool restrictions.

[Arkhios]

I have played with archtypes, and they're still very railroaded into one playstyle. Variety does not equate versatility. Once again, that's not the point. Point being the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster would be much more viable if they didn't have their spell class restrictions. If you have a point to refute how they do not restrict these subclasses into a specific role or playstyle, let's discuss that. If you want to discuss how you feel I'm wrong in my opinion of Pathfinder, create a new post and talk about it there.

Fair. While there are numerous archetypes (some of which even stack with each other), they each tend to be made with a specific playstyle in mind. But, just having those different archetypes for a class provides versatility within same class, because different archetypes lean towards different playstyles within same class. Yes, once chosen, they can't be changed so you must stick with it. But you still had a choice to diverge from the default.

It's not much different from letting eldritch knight or arcane trickster choose their two spell schools when they begin to cast spells. Granted, it's still restrictive because once chosen, it can't be changed.

But as Yakk said, just by giving more options to choose from is a huge boon for players. Giving the option to choose those spell schools is not a small thing.

I didn't say you're wrong in your opinion about pathfinder (see above), I merely questioned whether you knew that it too has archetypes a.k.a. sub-classes.

However, the real issue seems to concern a subset of rules of sub-classes. Not sub-classes themselves.

[mephnick]

I think might be for the best..... The restrictive spell school sounds fine, until you look at the list, and there's hardly a reason to take anything other than the usual same spells.

This is the reason I do it. I'm generally a stickler for enforcing the mechanical archetypes (I have ranted about it to the point of being warned) but this is one instance where I allow it to slide. Every EK I've ever run with at another table (and mine before I changed it) for 5 years is exactly the same. Shield, Absorb Elements, blah blah.

For the sake of variety I allow choices of 2 schools.

[Warlush]

In my experience the limited spell slots and the horrible progression is what nerfs AT and EK more than the school restrictions. I mean who the hell cares about 2nd lvl spells at lvl7?

[HamsterKun]

It wouldn’t be anything GAME-BREAKING per se, but I feel the reason EK and AT have said spell school restrictions is for flavor. Also, keep in mind that they get to choose a spell from any school at 3rd, 8th, 14th, and 20th Level.

[Sigreid]

At our table they are still restricted to 2 schools but the player gets to select the schools.

[Asmotherion]

Except your Archetype is supposed to "force RP" on you. it's designed that way.

Mechanically you won't be destroying any balance sure. But with the exception of way out of the box characters your class and archetype are also part of your overall bacround.

[Vogie]

The amount of confusion between spell school and spell list in this thread is astounding.

[Asmotherion]

In my experience the limited spell slots and the horrible progression is what nerfs AT and EK more than the school restrictions. I mean who the hell cares about 2nd lvl spells at lvl7?


Don't underestimate what a well placed Alter Self/Disguise Self/Silent image can accomplish.

Sure you don't get to be a decent blaster; Big deal. The best spells are the ones that don't deal damage 90percent of the time.

The amount of confusion between spell school and spell list in this thread is astounding.

i don't get your confusion. Both select from the Wizard Spell List. Each has it's own School Restrictions with the exception on some levels.

[KorvinStarmast]

For the sake of variety I allow choices of 2 schools.But you learned how to DM. :smallwink:

At our table they are still restricted to 2 schools but the player gets to select the schools. Hey, another DM who knows how.

Woot, tossing confetti begins ...

[darknite]

I think those restriction pigeon-hole those classes way too much.