I am not sure they suck but they don't appeal to me. The spell selection is too limited, progression to slow, and requires INT for DC's. I would be more inclined to go with a valor bard, blade pact warlock, or paladin to mix magic and combat because of the much better magical part in all 3 of those options.
My problem is that it does not truly combine martial & magic, it mostly sits them side by side somewhat awkwardly in the one character. I want evey swing of the weapon to be as magical as it is martial.
I think the issue might be that the Battlemaster got too many Superiority Dice at first level; 4 dice is a huge boost of power. Remember, the game seems to assume an average of 2 short rests per day and 6 encounters per day.
IF the battlemaster is optimally using their superiority dice, they'll get to use them 12 times a day. On a hit, lets say with Str 16 and just using a longsword with no dueling style, that's 2d8+3 (average 12) damage for 12 actions in the day. Their basic attack deals 1d8+3 (7.5). Simply speaking, their dice give them +12d8 damage over the day, or +54 damage.
The Eldritch Knight has 2 first level spells per day at 3rd level. Just looking at damaging spells, because hopefully spells are balanced, I'll pull burning hands and thunderwave out as examples. Burning hands deals 10.5 damage on a failed save, or 5.25 on a save; thunderwave deals 9 damage and push 10 on a failed save, 4.5 damage on a successful save. Spell creation guidelines say that spells which deal no damage on a successful save can deal 25% more damage, so lets increase those damages by 25% to account for damage on a failed save; now we're looking at 13.1 and 11.3, which is in the same area of damage as the battlemaster's attack. Their basic attack also deals 1d8+3 (7.5).
The CR calculator has you assume area attacks hit two targets for determining typical damage outputs. If they hit 2 targets with burning hands, which has no rider like thunderwave (which is comparable to the knockback manuver of the battlemaster), but deals more damage, it deals 26.2 damage. But this is an increase of +18.7 over their basic attack; if they use it twice in the day, that's +37.4 damage, and the battlemaster wins.
If we assume the eldritch knight saves their burning hands for hitting 3 targets (and we assume no damage is waisted for simplicity), then they deal 39.3 per burning hands, which is +31.8 over their basic, and 63.6 per day. If the EK uses both burning hands to hit 3 targets and they don't waist any damage, they'll do more damage than the battlemaster. If they hit 2 targets with one and 3 with the other, they'll be slightly behind the battlemaster. Two thunderwaves hitting 3 targets is +53 damage, or basically the same as the battlemaster.
That's a lot of ifs.
Now, I realize this is discounting the utility of spells and cantrips. Being able to drop an aoe on 2, 3, or even 4 targets, especially as more numerous targets are more likely to die from the damage, does provide some defensive oomph to the party. But considering that martial adept grants 2 maneuvers and 1 superiority die per short rest, and magic initiate gives you 1 spell per long rest, I'd venture to say the battlemaster might be the one that is overpowered.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
durntaur wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
People complain about EK because they want a swordmage, not a fighter/mage.
Personally, I've played one (levels 1-6), and I wanted a fighter/mage, and I think it's pretty much perfect for that. My only complaint is needing to take War Caster for hand management reasons; if you ignore that (and I think it's quite reasonable to ignore; my DM offered to ignore it but I wanted to see what it was like with it), I have no significant complaints about the class.
No, it's not a swordmage, but it doesn't need to be.
edit: Swordmage would almost fit as a paladin subclass, too. It'd be a little weird at levels 1-2 because you get spells before your subclass, but if you were starting at 3+, it'd be fine. (It'd be kind of weird to cast divine spells first, then get your subclass, then switch to arcane spells.)
Thaenok wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Eldritch Knight is not weak. There are plenty of discussions where someone brings up "if you're an eldritch knight..." as a way of increasing a fighter's power for some particular aspect (such as shield for an AC boost).
Lady_Auralla wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
The more I look at the EK, the more I think it really lends itself better to multiclassing. Your super-limited daily spell slots is a bit of a snooze, but by third level you have:
- Con save proficiency
- Heavy Armor
- Fighting Style
- Action Surge
- Character-level-scaling cantrips
That there is a recipe for a legit multiclass for any caster class. Even paladins and rangers don't get cantrips.
The problems with the EK are:
- Your main high-level fighter feature—suped-up Extra Attack—conflicts with your EK features (casting)
- School limitations prevent you from getting spells that give you class synergy and don't rely on INT; sleep, mirror image, haste, and misty step are what you want, but you can't get them.
- Because of the previous point, you're super MAD: you want Str/Dex, Con and Int
If you could get your utility, not your damage, from the Wizard spell list the EK would be in pretty good shape. As it is, unless you really really want the fighter's four attacks/round, you're probably better off multiclassing.
That said, thunderclap is a nice EK bandaid that Elemental Evil added, and most levels do have something non-int-scaling that is interesting to a fighter:
- Absorb Elements, Shield
- Nothing
- Counterspell
- Fire Shield, Stoneskin
Mostly i hate how they were built, just jamming on a few wizard schools onto the fighter does not a good warcaster make. A custom spell list that possibly with custom spells that were designed ot be used with the fighter chasis would be a lot better than just thorwing spells at the guy and leaving it up to the players to figure out which spells are useful and which aren't. Also the features that are tyring to mix spells and magic are boring, better to just have better spells in the first place.
Oh they are a warrior that can cast spells, ist's just that paladin does it better.
Mike Mearls has encouraged multiclassing eldritch knight with abjurer for a swordmage on more than one occasion.
Thaenok wrote:
Actually ... 1 spell you know at 1st level can come from any school. The spell you learn at 8, 14, and 20th can come from any school as well, so you only go 7 levels while only knowing 1 foreign spell. Interestingly, those levels are all shortly after you learn a new level of spells, so if you're even about it you can have 1 spell of each level outside of your school.
Out of the 13 spells you know, 4 are from any school, so 1/3rd about.
That's kind of my issue really, they tell you to pick out spells from other classes after giving you a poorly considered class spell list. Seems kind of like they couldn't be bothered to do a good job picking/creating spells for the EK and threw that in to cover their bums.
Thaenok wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
I am not interested in a fighter who is better at magic than wizards nor am I intersted in the opposite. What I am interested in is a character who has dedicated their life and traing into the melding of the two.
It sucks because it fails to deliver a coherent magical melee character. That matters as much as raw numbers.
Thaenok wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
The topicwas quoted as about the EK sucking. Something can suck for a multitude of reasons other than raw damage numbers.
Maybe if they created some EK only spells that were either a bonus action or had long duration that effected melee strikes that would improve it somewhat.
As soon as they bring back the Swordmage class the problem with eldritch knight ends, because everyone will forget that this sub class for fighter ever existed!! It is WOTC fault this crap ever happend to begin with if they just fixed and ported over the swordmage class to begin with there would have never been this wanna be sub class for swordmage EVER!! and for those who don't know about that class it was very popular in 4th and Richard Baker wrote a three book series for Forgotten Realms set in Hulburg city after the spell pleauge in the same area that most of the expeditions are in for AL.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Funny, at the last gaming session, the eldritch knight ruled the table pretty much. The player has developed a smart, versatile character that's able to balance ranged, melee, offense, and defense. I’ll admit he had been kind-of middling until then, but hitting fifth level really amped things up.
People who think the EK sucks probably havenot been paying attention. It is outclasssed at lowest levels at the highest levels it is probably the best fighter. Swordmage was not a core class and being popular in 4E doesn;t mean a lot when the fighter/mage has been in more popular editions and thats more what the EK is.
The Battlemaster is the best ffighter overall because it is really good at lower levels still decent at higher levels and has versatility.
I would say the EK is a slow burn but worth it. Just had my Half Orc (raised by a human wizard in Greenest) Str based GWF EK reach 13th level in Tiamat (after starting at 1st in HoTDQ), and while he's been good, adding Fly (traded in his Level 3 any school Jump spell) and Lightning Bolt finally brought him in line with the concept I had for him from the very beginning. It's not that I didn't enjoy those early levels, it's just that he felt very much like an apprentice until he got access to his 3rd level spells, which I think makes sense.
That said, I'd love to see an arcane version of the Paladin class that is truly 1/2 Fighter 1/2 Melee with a specifically tailored spell list. I would think Swordmage, Arcane Archer and some kind of Unarmed Telekinetic Master would make for great subclasses.
Zardnaar wrote:
Honestly, I don't think the EK was designed to be played single-classed. Near as I can tell, it was expressly designed to make the Fighter/Wizard MC better....and it does that quite effectively.
Okay, how about a feat that allows you to "cast a spell" through your weapon; damaging spells give a certain amount of damage depending on what level they were cast at and are the same damage type as the spell used (fire, force, cold, etc.), spells that have non-damaging effects/impose conditions impose that effect/condition on top of the normal weapon damage (damage and unconscious, for example).
I suggest feat because, outside of having an alternate class feature, that really seems like the only way to add something like this to the EK.
Zardnaar wrote:
I don't see it as being poor either. One of my players played a High Elf Eldritch knight. I helped him with the design (referencing the guides posted in the forums) to get the most out of the class and with his concept in mind. It was fine. He was able to participate effectively in combat. Measured by his abiliy to contribute to the group and his enjoyment in playing it, I'd consider it a useful archtype.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I should add that I have nothing against the EK as written, just some of the changes others suggested.
There are 3 gish build in the PHB to pick from (Valor Bard, Eldritch Knight, Bladelock) and several that can be built from MCing (fighter/abjurer, FIghter/baldelock) so it seems to be well represented in the PHB.
An EK with Shield and Magic Weapon on their hand crossbow or Haste and free teleports on action surge does just fine. The shield spell alone is comparable to burning superiority dice on defensive maneuvers. I'd say the main problem with EK is that the spells you most want tend towards concentration so they are unreliable and don't MC well with ranger or warlock making the class a bit unwieldy.
Personally, I’d rather play the champion than the battlemaster; if I’m playing a fighter, I want a straightforward character, not one that I have to manage superiority dice. That being said, I know two people playing battlemasters that love the path.
Farmer42 wrote:
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
CCS wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Agreed, at the very least they should be labled as such.
Thaenok wrote:
IMO, "traps" are an illusion. Or at least a construct whose sole purpose is to inform charop. Someone unconcerned with charop, and who's game is not impacted negatively by ignoring it, will not find traps. Because, presumably, they are taking things they like and things they would enjoy having/doing through their character. That cannot, by definition, be a trap.
arnwolf666 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
rampant wrote:
I have seen this issue happen when a player some what new to 4th while playing Neverwinter encounters created a character that was inefficient in some ways and and almost caused a TPK if it wasn't for the DM pulling punches to keep us alive. There were 4 of us I was front line combat with a swordmage and he was playing a Hexblade that he made more of a skill challenge player than comat capable. I tried to show and explain how his character could be more effective but he wanted the way it was so thats happend time and time again. It sucked. And now in AL there is real death so having a player like that can cost other players there characters. Which isn't fair.
Nozareem wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
rampant wrote:
This is a 5e forum. There is no place for 3e or 4e here. And as I said earlier, the idea of "traps" may have had a place in those previous editions, where builds and kule powrz was the thing that mattered to be relevant. But thankfully no longer. We here should all be grateful 5e has moved away from that paradigm. Anyone here not grateful is clearly in the wrong forum. I can provide links if needed.
I'm going to actually agree with ChrisCarlson this time. While it is definitely possible to intentionally make a bad character (give your fighter an 8 Str, Dex and Con and max Int, Wis and Cha) there aren't really any traps. The base classes with all of the default abilities make a solid class by themselves. The sub-classes also add useful abilities by default and if you manage to pick the mechanically "worse" choices your character will still be viable, and probably a lot of fun.
I also agree that all stats have more importance in this version of D&D, which I love. While you don't need Int for an Eldritch Knight, all characters would gain some benefit from a higher score and an Eldritch Knight would gain even more. Here are the stats for an Eldritch Knight I am playing in an AL game:
Str 16 +3
Dex 12 +1
Con 14 +2
Int 14 +2
Wis 13 +1
Cha 10 +0
You will notice I didn't dump any stats. Cha is the lowest, but I did put a point in it. And I went with standard Human because +6 to stats was more valuable to me than +2 to stats, plus a skill and a feat. He uses a great sword, javelins and wears heavy armor. At 3rd level he bonded the great sword and one javelin and has already had need to use the call weapon ability on both weapons.
The spells chosen at 3rd level are Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost, Absorb Elements, Burning Hands, and Shield.
So did I fall into a trap?
LordTwig wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The Eldritch knight should have probably hung off a sorcerer or a wizard with an extra attack at lvl 6, rather than a fighter subclass. Traditionally in 3.X at level 20 they could cast 9th level spells at CL 17 and have a BAB of 15. They slightly slowed down their casting to improve their martial features. They primary used buff spells to improve their battle performance.
In 5.0 a Eldritch knight is just a fighter that can occasionally cast a spell.
I think the best Eldritch knights in 5.0 are:
Paladin 6/Sorc 14 - Smites, extra attack and lots of spells.
Sorcerer 20 (favored soul) - extra attack and full spell casting (good fighting buff spells unlike the bard).
rampant wrote:
Traps are relative. If the whole party makes all their characters as suck at combat as they can it's still not a trap as long as they all do so. It just means the DM adjusts and throws less monsters at them and things like that.
However, if all but 1 player in a party take uber optimized combat builds and 1 player takes sucky combat stuff then he's falling into a trap because the relative strength of his character comapred to the others is too low.
All your statements as to what are traps in 5th edition I disagree with - it seems more accurate to say that you think they should be doing something other than what they are successfullly fulfilling their intention to do, and have declared them traps because they don't provide that something other.
Evident in that you think the point of a champion is battlefield control or damage-dealing, when the point is actually simplicity and survivability.
What I most want to address, however, is this gem:
rampant wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
I think the real trap is in believing DPR is the primary factor in enjoying the game. There's nothing wrong with a focus on mechanics for a player who sees that as important and I tweak what I can regularly but there's also nothing wrong with making a choice for a character that the player finds more interesting. The tragedy would be playing a character that the player doesn't really enjoy regardless of effectiveness in what's essentially an interactive story game. I would also point out the hero concept can include the larger than life powerful being or it can include the normal joe who succeeds despite all odds based on strength of conviction in stories. In gameplay the only difference is playstyle towards the same goal.
As far as I'm concerned a "trap" option is an option that either is inferior but doesn't look that way, or an option that fails to live up (mechanically) to what is promised (or both). I do think that 5e does have 'traps' (and yes 3.X and 4e did as well).
The trap option that comes to me off the top of my head in 5e is the bladelock. Mind you, I do NOT think the warlock class itself is a trap. However, if you read the text of the three warlock pacts, you get the impression that the bladelock is meant and designed for those that want to turn the warlock into a gish (i.e. a magic using fighting type that can stand the shock of melee combat).
The problem is the bladelock (and the two invocations that require this pact) simply don't live up to that billing? Why? Because:
1. It doesn't give any better protection options than a standard warlock (by contrast the Valor Bard option does exactly that). Nor does it make the warlock any 'tougher'. As such the bladelock is just as vunerable in close melee combat as any other warlock.
2. The pact option doesn't actually improve the warlock's potential in melee over any other warlock using Eldritch Blast and Crossbow Expert (a feat any warlock can get). In fact given that EB will eventually be able to attack four times vice only twice with a pact weapon, it's fairly easy to show that the EB using warlock does at least as well if not better in melee for less resources than a bladelock does using a pact weapon.
I am sure there are other traps but this is the one that comes to mind.
Polaris wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Agreed. And as a DM, I always put in challenges that rely on more than just strength, dex, and con (though those are in there, too). Challenges that can’t just be solved with brute force. And I even put in challenges that require player smarts, not just high dice rolls.
Ashrym wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Let's try an experiment. This is directed at the "No traps" side of the discussion. It most certainly is a "strawman" argument, but it's made to serve as an illustrative point
Let's say at 10th level a character is presented with a choice of two separate class abilities to take. They may only choose one.
One is called "Unstoppable Power". The game effect is "You may add +1 to any Charisma check".
The other is called "CleverTrick". The game effect is "All attack rolls you make have advantage and all dice you roll for famage are doubled."
Would you say the first option is a "Trap"? If so, why? If not, would you claim the potential benefit of +1 to charisma checks in the social pillar makes it a valid choice?
There's no wrong answer here; but the answer given might help illustrate how profoundly far the different viewpoints are apart.
Polaris wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Having to repeatedly digress to using 4e and 3e examples or references is what cedes an argument. Fail.
Thank you for the response Chris.
Yes, it's an extreme, lopsided, even absurd example. But it's worth noting that even in an absurd, extreme lopsided example you don't consider there to be a trap. I think you would find that you are very very much in the minority on that opinion, and that is a useful point for anyone in the discussion to consider. By the standards you are using, the very CONCEPT of a "trap" option is impossible, so of course, none of the options presented to you will fit your criteria. Yours is an unreachable standard.
As for how you can ver take the "wrong" one? If you have no preference between social and combat and make the (not unreasonable) assumption that options presented with a similar opportunity cost will be of similar value. Those two options are not of similar value. The comparison is not just "apples and oranges". It is a box saying "Apple" containing 1 apple and a box saying "Orange" containing 10 oranges, and you like both fruits equally.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
Polaris wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Thaenok wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Aaron,
I will respond thusly: If the blade pact weren't a trap, then the EB warlock (which is available to ANY warlock as is Armor of Agythys btw) shouldn't even be in the running. As it is, it's at least on par and is actually better from at least 11th level on. That's a trap, especially when you consider that the alternative option still has more invocations, is a better warlock both qualitatively and quantatively, AND still has their pact option to be even better.
If that's not a trap then what is?
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Like the EK I believe the Bladelock could strongly benefit from have a couple of spells each level designed with it in mind.
Lady_Auralla wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
My take:
Whatev's - give me a character with every "trap" option you think there is, and because I'm a skillful player, I will still take the Pepsi challenge against anyone else's character without "trap" options. When I'm in the spotlight, I will shine and be awesome. When you're in the spotlight, I'll use my "traps" to make you shine and be awesome. When we walk away from the table at the end of the session, everyone will remember my character's name, what he or she is about, all the stuff I did and accomplished, and they'll want to see more next session, guaranteed.
That's what really matters in a roleplaying game and no amount of whiteroom DPR-calculations is going to show that.
So go forth and be the most awesome eldritch knight you can be, have fun and make fun for everyone else, while contributing to an exciting, memorable story.
Polaris wrote:
i think the people arguing "That isn't a trap!" ad infinitum should give a specific (hypothetical is fine) example of something that THEY would actually consider is a trap.
Because it is painfully obvious by this point that people are not using the word to mean the same thing.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Thank you for the response Aaron.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
The fighter class in general should be three separate classes, so each has room to breath. Otherwise, all the fighter subclasses are anchored down by what the champion is capable of doing.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Uchawi wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
If the battleaxe were hands down better than the warhammer, I'd probably reflavor my character and have Thor's Axe Mjolnor instead.
Xeviat-DM wrote: