Should Eldritch Knights get the new Bladesinger enhancement to Extra Attack?

[Mr Adventurer]

So I like Eldritch Knights and Gish in general.

I think the new Bladesinger Extra Attack feature, which allows them to replace one of their two Extra Attacks with a cantrip spell, is a fantastic feature with an incredible range of versatility.

I'd like to juice up the Eldritch Knight level 7 feature, War Magic, a touch as well.

Would it be appropriate to simply add the same ability? Like this:

"War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Moreover, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of your attacks."

Alternatively, would a replacement be more appropriate? Like this:

"War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Beginning at 7th level, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of your attacks."

Or perhaps Eldritch Knights shouldn't get anything like this. Why not?

[diplomancer]

Do EKs need a power boost when compared to other fighters?
If yes, that's a thematic way to do it. If not, then no.

[Hael]

I always felt war magic should have been vice versa. Instead of action cantrip, ba attack.. it should have been whenever you take an attack action, you can use a ba to cast a cantrip. That way it’s not superseded by fighters later abilities. Otoh the scagtrips make it too powerful

[Tanarii]

Nope. Cantrip +1 attack is sufficiently juicy compared to extra attack, even without SCAG. Cantrip + 2 attacks at 11th isn't necessary,

[RogueJK]

No.

Letting them match the full Fighter attack progression, also with stuff like GWM, and then still adding in the scaling damage of BB/GFB on top, would be too much in Tiers 3 and 4.

The Fighter's number of attacks scales with Tiers. Cantrip damage scales with Tiers. It's specifically intended to keep them from double-dipping on that scaling.

As it is, EKs get a useful ability that they can use to get a nice little damage boost from Level 7 through Level 10, and then it becomes superseded by their 3rd Attack at Level 11 and relegated to more niche use like when you really want to lock an enemy down and dissuade them from moving (with BB).


Plus, EKs can already take advantage of stacking GWM + scaling Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade for their Cantrip, which Bladesingers cannot do because they're limited to one-handed weapons. So that would make that BS-style Cantrip substitution even stronger on an EK.

[Witty Username]

I am going to give a hard maybe.

I feel EK is already behind battle master a bit with war magic giving them the ability to keep up. by 11th level extra attack(2) puts BM solidly at the top.
However, BS will not be attacking every turn while EK is much more likely to due to the relative power of their spells, fireball is worth taking a turn off at 5th, less so at 11th. So EK getting this is more transformative than the BS.

I think the big thing is EK gets cantrip damage to keep up with extra attack while the other fighters get to benefit from extra attack while adding their damage options. So the question becomes is the extra damage from cantrips more than the other fighter abilities by enough.

And this isn't getting into multi classing, which is hard to evaluate.

[GiantOctopodes]

Do EKs need a power boost when compared to other fighters?
If yes, that's a thematic way to do it. If not, then no.

The general theme of this reply is carried forth in several other replies as well, evaluating the strength of EK vs other fighters. I'm just not sure I understand the logic. What does it matter? Are you running a campaign with multiple fighters of disparate subclasses? Are you having an open invitational, free for all arena battler? If not, how is this relevant?

For me, the better question would be Does your player's EK need a power boost when compared to the other players. That will depend on a variety of things, including but not limited to:
- How optimized is their character, from attributes and background on up?
- How is their gear looking in comparison to the others?
- How imaginative are they as a player?
- How much of the spotlight do they command, in and out of combat?
- Are they the type of player that would benefit from and appreciate a mechanical benefit in terms of options like that?

So if you feel they need a boost, them as a player specifically within the context of your compaign, I agree, it's a thematic way to do it. It's a big boost, there's a big difference between an attack action with a bonus cantrip occurring and gaining a bonus action attack on using your action on a cantrip. So I'd approach with caution, personally, but again it all depends on context imho.

[Hael]

No.

Letting them match the full Fighter attack progression, also with stuff like GWM, and then still adding in the scaling damage of BB/GFB on top, would be too much in Tiers 3 and 4.

The Fighter's number of attacks scales with Tiers. Cantrip damage scales with Tiers. It's specifically intended to keep them from double-dipping on that scaling..

Its less bad than you make it seem. If they had a cantrip as a BA (and this wasn’t like the blade dancer ) that competes with GWM and feats like PAM. So the only thing they gain is the damage rider on BB/GW.

I would say if the scagtrips didn’t exist and it was just firebolt, that it would be roughly acceptable as a primary feature. Other warriors get some pretty strong damage features, like extra attacks.

Moreover they have just been nerfed recently with the change to booming blade and shadowblade. Anyway.

[MaxWilson]

So I like Eldritch Knights and Gish in general.

I think the new Bladesinger Extra Attack feature, which allows them to replace one of their two Extra Attacks with a cantrip spell, is a fantastic feature with an incredible range of versatility.

I'd like to juice up the Eldritch Knight level 7 feature, War Magic, a touch as well.

Would it be appropriate to simply add the same ability? Like this:

"War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Moreover, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of your attacks."

Alternatively, would a replacement be more appropriate? Like this:

"War Magic
Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action.

Beginning at 7th level, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of your attacks."

Or perhaps Eldritch Knights shouldn't get anything like this. Why not?

Hot take: Eldritch Knights shouldn't get anything like this, and neither should Bladesingers, because it's power creep.

I'd say either use Bladesingers as originally written in SCAG, or give them the Tasha's long-rest prof Bladesinging instead of 2/short rest but also give them EK's War Magic: bonus action attack when you cast a cantrip. It does mean that on round 1 they can only make one attack in fights where they activate Bladesong, but oh well, Tasha Bladesingers are less likely to Bladesong in every fight anyway.

But Bladesingers definitely should not be better at attacking with weapons than Eldritch Knights, so they should not get the Tasha's version of Extra Attack.

Edit: if SCAG cantrips didn't exist (PHB only) I'd be open to giving EKs (only) the Tasha's ability to cantrip in place of a weapon attack, but with SCAGtrips in the game, War Magic already has a pretty good niche.

[diplomancer]

The general theme of this reply is carried forth in several other replies as well, evaluating the strength of EK vs other fighters. I'm just not sure I understand the logic. What does it matter? Are you running a campaign with multiple fighters of disparate subclasses? Are you having an open invitational, free for all arena battler? If not, how is this relevant?

For me, the better question would be Does your player's EK need a power boost when compared to the other players. That will depend on a variety of things, including but not limited to:
- How optimized is their character, from attributes and background on up?
- How is their gear looking in comparison to the others?
- How imaginative are they as a player?
- How much of the spotlight do they command, in and out of combat?
- Are they the type of player that would benefit from and appreciate a mechanical benefit in terms of options like that?

So if you feel they need a boost, them as a player specifically within the context of your compaign, I agree, it's a thematic way to do it. It's a big boost, there's a big difference between an attack action with a bonus cantrip occurring and gaining a bonus action attack on using your action on a cantrip. So I'd approach with caution, personally, but again it all depends on context imho.

It's whether you are approaching the question from a DM homebrewing perspective, in which case you are right, or from a general game design perspective.

If you are approaching it from a general game design perspective, the important thing is not to make one subclass so obviously optimal that other subclasses are discarded.

[Witty Username]

Hot take: Eldritch Knights shouldn't get anything like this, and neither should Bladesingers, because it's power creep.

Eh, that assumes EK and blade singer were already the best options which is not really the case.

Battle master > EK, and blade singer is middle of the road for wizard sub classes.

Quick damage check
EK level 7, greatsword
green-flame blade(2d6+4+2d8+6) + weapon attack(2d6+4) avg total 37
vs
bonus action flaming sphere add (I think that is the best option a EK has for their bonus action from a damage standpoint, I could be wrong)
+2d6(7) new ave total 44

Hunter ranger level 5, greatsword + hunter's mark + Horde breaker(chosen as best comparison with green-flame blade)
Three weapon attacks (9d6+12) avg total 43.5 damage

Oh no, The EK squeaks past the hunter ranger by .5 damage. Clearly this is more power creep than the game can bear

[RogueJK]

Quick damage check
EK level 7, greatsword
green-flame blade(2d6+4+2d8+6) + weapon attack(2d6+4) avg total 37
vs
bonus action flaming sphere add (I think that is the best option a EK has for their bonus action from a damage standpoint, I could be wrong)
+2d6(7) new ave total 44

Hunter ranger level 5, greatsword + hunter's mark + Horde breaker(chosen as best comparison with green-flame blade)
Three weapon attacks (9d6+12) avg total 43.5 damage

Oh no, The EK squeaks past the hunter ranger by .5 damage. Clearly this is more power creep than the game can bear


A few points:

1) An EK 7 can't cast Flaming Sphere. They'd have to wait until Level 8 and use their "Any School" pick to learn Flaming Sphere, since it's not an Evocation/Abjuration spell, and there are a lot of other spells they'd potentially want to pick with that free choice at Level 8 instead. So that comes at a higher cost than, say, a Wizard learning Flaming Sphere or a Druid preparing Flaming Sphere.

2) Horde Breaker is only usable under specific situations, when there's a second enemy within 5 feet of your primary target enemy and still within your reach. Outside of that circumstance, Horde Breaker adds nothing. Whereas even without the rider, Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade adds damage in any melee situation, starting at Level 5+. Abilities that only apply to occasional specific circumstances should allow for greater damage than more generally applicable abilities, rewarding the specialist occasionally operating under ideal circumstances in their niche vs. the generalist all the time.

3) Expending a 2nd level spell slot (plus a precious Any School spell as discussed above) for a character that only has access to two 2nd level slots is a higher cost than simply making repeatable melee attacks, or using repeatable cantrips, or using a 1st level spell slot when you have access to more 1st level slots and higher level slots too. Higher resource expenditure should allow for greater results than lesser/free resources, otherwise there's less incentive to spend these more precious resources.

4) It's not necessarily power creep in Tier 2, because the EK can already get one Attack plus a Cantrip under the existing rules. Allowing them BS-style cantrip substitution would be power creep in Tier 3 and 4, when they're no longer faced with losing out on any of their additional attacks to cast that cantrip, and can still make their full 3/4 melee attack routine.

[Kane0]

For balance purposes I would say let the fighter trade two attacks from the attack action to cast a cantrip.
At level 7 this does nothing so the original cast + BA attack is useful, once level 11 comes around you can do the same thing while keeping your BA free.

[Damon_Tor]

The EK doesn't need any help: it's a top-tier subclass on a top-tier chassis. They don't need a straight buff, which is unquestionably what this would be. I also don't care for lifting an ability wholesale from another class or subclass, the abilities should be distinct.

But as it happens, I don't care for the war magic feature for several reasons. So I'm open to a change, as long as it isn't a strict improvement over the original.

My suggestion:


War Magic
Starting at seventh level, whenever you take the attack action on your turn, you can replace one of the attacks with a first-level spell you know. The spell is otherwise cast normally, using components and a spell slot if required. You can use a spell slot no higher than first level to cast a spell in this way.

Starting at 11th level you can replace two of your attacks with a first or second level spell you know, using a second level spell slot. At 20th level you can replace three of your attacks with a first, second or third level spell you know using a third level spell slot.

At first glance this might SEEM like a more powerful ability than War Magic as published, but it drains the EK's limited spell slots, so he can't be using it at-will.

[Witty Username]

A few points:

1) An EK 7 can't cast Flaming Sphere. They'd have to wait until Level 8 and use their "Any School" pick to learn Flaming Sphere, since it's not an Evocation/Abjuration spell, and there are a lot of other spells they'd potentially want to pick with that free choice at Level 8 instead. So that comes at a higher cost than, say, a Wizard learning Flaming Sphere or a Druid preparing Flaming Sphere.

2) Horde Breaker is only usable under specific situations, when there's a second enemy within 5 feet of your primary target enemy and still within your reach. Outside of that circumstance, Horde Breaker adds nothing. Whereas even without the rider, Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade adds damage in any melee situation, starting at Level 5+. Abilities that only apply to occasional specific circumstances should allow for greater damage than more generally applicable abilities, rewarding the specialist occasionally operating under ideal circumstances in their niche vs. the generalist all the time.

3) Expending a 2nd level spell slot (plus a precious Any School spell as discussed above) for a character that only has access to two 2nd level slots is a higher cost than simply making repeatable melee attacks, or using repeatable cantrips, or using a 1st level spell slot when you have access to more 1st level slots and higher level slots too. Higher resource expenditure should allow for greater results than lesser/free resources, otherwise there's less incentive to spend these more precious resources.

4) It's not necessarily power creep in Tier 2, because the EK can already get one Attack plus a Cantrip under the existing rules. Allowing them BS-style cantrip substitution would be power creep in Tier 3 and 4, when they're no longer faced with losing out on any of their additional attacks to cast that cantrip, and can still make their full 3/4 melee attack routine.
1) and 3) feature of the exercise rather than a bug. I will give the flub on 7, I keep forgetting when EK gets its unrestricted spells unless I am actively looking at the book.
2) I was thinking of using colossus slayer instead but I thought horde breaker was more comparable to use for green flame blade, the point of ranger is that ranger is considered the weakest class by most people so if it tracks as on par with or less than ranger it is a sign the thing isn't OP.

4)I suppose this disconnect is partially of my way of thinking. In short, when I ask "is something OP?", I view the tier at which you get it is the most important, and the higher the tier the less it matters. And my care for Tier 4 balance is shaky at best.
but to try
Tier 3, or more precisely 11th level the EK would be better than it currently is. But would it be better than a battle master that is throwing around +d10 plus good stuff (by then it has 7 maneuvers, and can use 5 per short rest)?
Would it be better then diving out at 8 or 10 for wizard to fill out its spell list and improve its progression?
As I understand most fighters, including EK tend to start looking at multi classing before level 11 anyway so this would have to be compared with those options. Also, battle master has natural synergy with rogue, barbarian, and ranger, along with being already able to already benefit from extra attack(2) while doing it.

Tier 4 well, I don't even know. I will just admit that I have little care for how OP things are in comparison to each other once the 9th level spells are in play.

[MaxWilson]

A few points:

1) An EK 7 can't cast Flaming Sphere. They'd have to wait until Level 8 and use their "Any School" pick to learn Flaming Sphere,

Quick note because I'm on phone.

Nitpick: upon reaching EK 7, they can swap out their anyschool pick from EK 3 for a level 2 spell (Flaming Sphere, or more likely Magic Weapon or Shadow Blade).

[someguy]

Absolutely they should get it because it just feels lame to get a class feature which is useful for only 4 levels. War magic is a pile of unfun trash, make it fun.

Look how cool I am, I’m hitting fools with my sword and blasting them with spells. Ohh but then I stopped because my fighter sub class feature is straight worse than my base class feature.

[stoutstien]

I don't think EK needs any real boosts. It's not the most harmonious subclass but hard to argue over it's effectiveness.

[cutlery]

Even with the bladesinger extra attack, the EK is behind the battlemaster. If a bladesinger gets it, an ek should too. If the bladesinger doesn’t, the ek doesn’t need it.

[LudicSavant]

Talking about things like EKs using Flaming Sphere + GWM would be more indicative of an EK's optimization floor than ceiling, IMHO.

[Zhorn]

I don't think they should get it, but if there was an insistence of EKs getting Bladesinger's extra attack cantrip enhancement, I'd say you swap those features between the class.
None of this "give this class the feature from another class on top of what they already have" nor am I in favour of the "two different classes taking the same feature". Let the classes have their own unique flavourings that the other does not.

Want feature A? then play class A
Want feature B? then play class B
Want both feature A & B? then play a multiclass A & B

[Valmark]

I'd say either use Bladesingers as originally written in SCAG, or give them the Tasha's long-rest prof Bladesinging instead of 2/short rest but also give them EK's War Magic: bonus action attack when you cast a cantrip. It does mean that on round 1 they can only make one attack in fights where they activate Bladesong, but oh well, Tasha Bladesingers are less likely to Bladesong in every fight anyway.

But Bladesingers definitely should not be better at attacking with weapons than Eldritch Knights, so they should not get the Tasha's version of Extra Attack.


Probably should point out that Bladesingers had an errata in SCAG (or rather, the book has an errata) that makes them like Tasha's regarding Bladesong and War Magic so it doesn't actually change much (I haven't checked if they are completely equal in the other features).

*** (This is to separate the reply to Max from the reply to the thread, not a swear word)

Imo they should have been swapped- I feel like that feature belonged to the EK all along. I literally went "Why did they Eldritch Knighted the Bladesinger?"

Attacks+cantrip belongs more to a full martial then cantrip+attack- it's also true that I'm not a fan of the EK's action economy in War Magic, so that might be the issue to me.

Also note that in the two versions you gave the former and the latter are essentially equal- because if you add that second version to the first of War Magic nobody will use the first. Second is just plain better, period.

[Witty Username]

A note to bladesinger's cantrip attack replacement. Which I wasn't focused on because I think there is less to talk about even if I feel more strongly about it than the eldritch knight stuff.
With SCAG bladesinger, it didn't really have much reason to use weapons at all, because their cantrips would out scale extra attack, Tasha's gives blade singer to use weapons and keep using them (whenever casting cantrips is the plan). This feature is important to the blade singer theme, and it not requiring a bonus action to use like EK is more needed to smoothly incorporate bladesong into a combat routine since bladesong is important to the functionality of bladesinger in melee. In short, blade singer should have it.

EK is more arguable. I still doubt power creep being an issue, at least in the broad strokes.