Eldritch Knight Action Economy L3

[arnin77]

I’m currently playing a level 2 fighter and am thinking about going Eldritch Knight at level 3. My current build is:
VHuman (Magic Initiate Feat: Find Familiar, Booming Blade, Light)
S:16 D:10 C:14 I:14 W:10 C:10
Fighter: Dueling (Sword and Board)

Once I get to level 3 I’m picking up the spells: Firebolt/Toll the Dead, ?, Shield, Absorb Elements, Magic Missle/Feather Fall

When I have Weapon Bond I’m thinking a spear and longsword for my bonds, this way I can throw a spear and summon it back.

My question is this…. Does the following work for action economy:
Round 1: Action, attack with longsword; free action, stow longsword; reaction cast shield
Round 2: Bonus Action, summon longsword; action, attack with longsword; free action stow longsword, reaction, cast shield.

Feels clunky, but until I hit level 4 and get warcaster I think this is what I have to do in order to be able to cast a reaction spell? Is this correct?

[Jak]

I was working on a similar idea when making a switch hitter EK recently. (Heavy crossbow + maul, greataxe, or great sword)

I'm not sure if you can stow a weapon as a free action, but I know you can drop one. Either way, you can still summon it to your hand as a bonus action.

This actually makes me wonder if this was one of the intended uses of weapon bond; to drop your weapons willy nilly when you want to have a hand free for spell casting, without messing up your action economy. After all, it seems to play well into fighters having over all excellent action economy.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure if you can stow a weapon as a free action, but I know you can drop one.

Per JC, stowing a weapon uses your free interaction, and dropping it doesn't even do that, meaning you can do both without using up any of your "real" actions. But you can also just take War Caster; Fighter has plenty of ASIs.

[Jak]

Per JC, stowing a weapon uses your free interaction, and dropping it doesn't even do that, meaning you can do both without using up any of your "real" actions. But you can also just take War Caster; Fighter has plenty of ASIs.

I know you can, but as an EK, it may be nice for some to know that with point buy, they could get their int, con, AND str or dex maxed out by level 20.

Plus, if you you can make things work reasonably well without a feat, why not just take the ASI?

Not trying to crap on warcaster, I know there's other benefits. I just prefer my level ups to be about MAX GAINS!.


Oh, you could take neat things like metamagic adept, too.

Edit: that jcraw bit is neat. Does that mean you can drop something when it's not your turn?

[solidork]

Per JC, stowing a weapon uses your free interaction, and dropping it doesn't even do that, meaning you can do both without using up any of your "real" actions. But you can also just take War Caster; Fighter has plenty of ASIs.

The thing is, you've still got to at least play at level 3 before you can take it at 4 - the exact scenario this thread is about.

To the OP, yes - that should work, even though it's extremely awkward. That being said, don't be afraid to fight without a shield sometimes if you think you can get away with it - being able to grapple is a nice benefit.

[Psyren]

The thing is, you've still got to at least play at level 3 before you can take it at 4 - the exact scenario this thread is about.

One level without a shield won't kill you!

...Uh, hopefully :smalltongue:

[Jervis]

I know you can, but as an EK, it may be nice for some to know that with point buy, they could get their int, con, AND str or dex maxed out by level 20.

Plus, if you you can make things work reasonably well without a feat, why not just take the ASI?

Not trying to crap on warcaster, I know there's other benefits. I just prefer my level ups to be about MAX GAINS!.


Oh, you could take neat things like metamagic adept, too.

Edit: that jcraw bit is neat. Does that mean you can drop something when it's not your turn?

May I introduce you to the lanyard. Tie a string around your wrist and loop one end through the weapons pommel. Realistically it’s free action drop and item interaction to pick up the thing dangling from your wrist. Alternatively just use a two handed weapon and use somatic components with one hand while you hold the weapon in the other, it only takes two hands to attack not hold it.

The only argument I’ve ever seen against this is the 3.5 argument of “there’s a feat for it.” Warcaster lets you cast while holding those, so it is better and gives other advantages as well, and avoids possible problems from dropping a weapon at a inoperatune time.

[Bobthewizard]

What you do works, but it precludes you from taking attacks of opportunity, which I would say is more likely and more useful than shield.

For EK, I think you are better off with a two-handed weapon, than sword and board or TWF.

[RogueJK]

What you do works, but it precludes you from taking attacks of opportunity, which I would say is more likely and more useful than shield.

For EK, I think you are better off with a two-handed weapon, than sword and board or TWF.

Unless taking Warcaster, as he's planning to do at the next level here.

Fighters have ASIs to spare, so can more easily afford to take Warcaster, while other melee caster builds may or may not be able to squeeze it in and would lean more towards a 2H weapon if their DM is a stickler for free hands and spell components, such as a Paladin/Sorcadin. (Luckily, my DM handwaves spell components with sword+board, even without Warcaster.)

In this particular case, if you're having to stick to strict spell component rules, it's not a big deal to just forego casting Shield while awaiting taking Warcaster at the next level. That way you have still make AoOs in the meantime, and can still take advantage of a shield's +2 AC and Dueling's +2 damage. That'll be fine for 1 more level. After all, most Fighters don't have access to Shield anyway.

[Frogreaver]

May I introduce you to the lanyard. Tie a string around your wrist and loop one end through the weapons pommel. Realistically it’s free action drop and item interaction to pick up the thing dangling from your wrist. Alternatively just use a two handed weapon and use somatic components with one hand while you hold the weapon in the other, it only takes two hands to attack not hold it.

The only argument I’ve ever seen against this is the 3.5 argument of “there’s a feat for it.” Warcaster lets you cast while holding those, so it is better and gives other advantages as well, and avoids possible problems from dropping a weapon at a inoperatune time.

Having sharp pointy things on strings isn’t going to end well in chaotic combat where your not just attacking and standing still till you attack again. And where you need to use your hands to cast spells. IMO.

[arnin77]

Yeah I’ll be taking warcaster at 4, not sure about 6 and 8 though - if I survive… probably +2 strength and +2 con

I’m curious how sentinel and warcaster react to one another… from my reading; it sounds like you cast a spell instead of taking an opportunity attack… so it wouldn’t prock sentinel at all?

Is it worth it to have sentinel incase you want to control movement or take an OA if someone beside you is getting attacked? I do like options, but it doesn’t sound like sentinel and warcaster mesh well - is it either use one or the other?

[solidork]

The reaction attack you make when someone attacks someone without Sentinel near you is not an opportunity attack, so it doesn't combo with Warcaster.

I personally think that taking both is a little overkill, you're already extremely punishing against people that move away with Warcaster+Booming Blade. Yes, they can get away by disengaging but there are actually some advantages to that - if you BBd them during your turn, they'll take more damage, and sometimes you want them to waste their action disengaging so they don't stand next to you and just attack.

[Tanarii]

Just use a Longsword without a shield for one level instead of trying to game the system.

[Jervis]

Unless taking Warcaster, as he's planning to do at the next level here.

Fighters have ASIs to spare, so can more easily afford to take Warcaster, while other melee caster builds may or may not be able to squeeze it in and would lean more towards a 2H weapon if their DM is a stickler for free hands and spell components, such as a Paladin/Sorcadin. (Luckily, my DM handwaves spell components with sword+board, even without Warcaster.)

In this particular case, if you're having to stick to strict spell component rules, it's not a big deal to just forego casting Shield while awaiting taking Warcaster at the next level. That way you have still make AoOs in the meantime, and can still take advantage of a shield's +2 AC and Dueling's +2 damage. That'll be fine for 1 more level. After all, most Fighters don't have access to Shield anyway.
Divine casters can reasonable get away with it since divine focuses are usually holy Symbols which can reasonable be painted onto a shield. Cheesy but it’s something I allow because in my mind it fits the flavor. And because the rules say you can perform somatic components with a focus in hand, that works.


What you do works, but it precludes you from taking attacks of opportunity, which I would say is more likely and more useful than shield.

For EK, I think you are better off with a two-handed weapon, than sword and board or TWF.
No it doesn’t. Drop the weapon to around your wrist and pick it up as a item interaction during your move (or lack thereof). Slightly cheesy but I have yet to see a good argument why it shouldn’t work. Dropping items was stated by Crawford to be not an action (5e equivalent of a free action, but no terminology so, eh). And grabbing something hanging from your wrist takes less time than unsheathing a weapon.


Having sharp pointy things on strings isn’t going to end well in chaotic combat where your not just attacking and standing still till you attack again. And where you need to use your hands to cast spells. IMO.

Yeah you have a hammer or sword hanging from your wrist for a few seconds while you cast a spell but you’re in armor and a few hand movements doesn’t give the kind of force needed to actually penetrate anything. There are no real rules governing this sort of thing and nothing says a somatic component has to be more energetic than hand movements.

[Bobthewizard]

No it doesn’t. Drop the weapon to around your wrist and pick it up as a item interaction during your move (or lack thereof). Slightly cheesy but I have yet to see a good argument why it shouldn’t work. Dropping items was stated by Crawford to be not an action (5e equivalent of a free action, but no terminology so, eh). And grabbing something hanging from your wrist takes less time than unsheathing a weapon.

I was referring to the original poster's proposal. I think I would have quoted you if I were talking to you, but I see the confusion now. Yours probably works by RAW. It's just a silly image in real life. I would say that I wouldn't allow it as a DM, but in my games I don't make players worry about this stuff. You can switch the items in your hand freely, stowing, drawing whatever you need at the moment. Except shields. Shields take an action.

[RogueJK]

Divine casters can reasonable get away with it since divine focuses are usually holy Symbols which can reasonable be painted onto a shield. Cheesy but it’s something I allow because in my mind it fits the flavor. And because the rules say you can perform somatic components with a focus in hand, that works.

This works for Paladin/Cleric spells with a non-consumed/non-cost material component, or both a material and a somatic component. But not with spells with a somatic component but no material component. RAW, they'd still need a free hand for those.

Also, something like a Sorcadin/Bardadin can't use the holy symbol for Bard/Sorcerer spells. They'd need a free hand for any Sorcerer/Bard spells with either material or somatic components.

[Aaron Underhand]

The stow /summon approach is cleanest. You are giving up both your bonus action and your opportunity attack for the extra defense of the shield spell.

You want Warcaster at 4th!