I don't think you can make them have disadvantage on the same spell twice.
It's disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
So turn 1 you attack, you hit with elritch strike.
Turn 2 you cast hold person, and they have disadvantage.
Turn 3 you're attacking again, but you would have to cast ANOTHER spell for htem to get disadvantage on because you're not casting a new spell, just still concentrating on an old one.
You are correct though that INT isn't useless, it's just not required. It depends on how you want to play/what spells you want to focus on.
I don’t see anything in the language that prevents that. It is making a saving throw against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
The key language here is "spell that you cast before the end of your next turn." You cast the spell on that second turn, so it works there. But afterwards you aren't forcing wisdom saves because you cast a spell, but because you are holding concentration on a spell.
Yeah. You have to cast a new spell after eldritch strike goes into effect, a spell already cast wouldn't benefit from it after the fact.
I don't think you can make them have disadvantage on the same spell twice.
It's disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
So turn 1 you attack, you hit with elritch strike.
Turn 2 you cast hold person, and they have disadvantage.
Turn 3 you're attacking again, but you would have to cast ANOTHER spell for htem to get disadvantage on because you're not casting a new spell, just still concentrating on an old one.
You are correct though that INT isn't useless, it's just not required. It depends on how you want to play/what spells you want to focus on.
I don’t see anything in the language that prevents that. It is making a saving throw against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
The key language here is "spell that you cast before the end of your next turn." You cast the spell on that second turn, so it works there. But afterwards you aren't forcing wisdom saves because you cast a spell, but because you are holding concentration on a spell.
That is giving an expiration for when Eldritch Strike expires. When the spell was cast does not matter. When you hit someone with a weapon attack, you have until the end of your next turn for ES to remain in effect.
Per Jeremy Crawford: Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast. This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.
I don't think you can make them have disadvantage on the same spell twice.
It's disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
So turn 1 you attack, you hit with elritch strike.
Turn 2 you cast hold person, and they have disadvantage.
Turn 3 you're attacking again, but you would have to cast ANOTHER spell for htem to get disadvantage on because you're not casting a new spell, just still concentrating on an old one.
You are correct though that INT isn't useless, it's just not required. It depends on how you want to play/what spells you want to focus on.
I don’t see anything in the language that prevents that. It is making a saving throw against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
The key language here is "spell that you cast before the end of your next turn." You cast the spell on that second turn, so it works there. But afterwards you aren't forcing wisdom saves because you cast a spell, but because you are holding concentration on a spell.
Yeah. You have to cast a new spell after eldritch strike goes into effect, a spell already cast wouldn't benefit from it after the fact.
I don't think you can make them have disadvantage on the same spell twice.
It's disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
So turn 1 you attack, you hit with elritch strike.
Turn 2 you cast hold person, and they have disadvantage.
Turn 3 you're attacking again, but you would have to cast ANOTHER spell for htem to get disadvantage on because you're not casting a new spell, just still concentrating on an old one.
You are correct though that INT isn't useless, it's just not required. It depends on how you want to play/what spells you want to focus on.
I don’t see anything in the language that prevents that. It is making a saving throw against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.
The key language here is "spell that you cast before the end of your next turn." You cast the spell on that second turn, so it works there. But afterwards you aren't forcing wisdom saves because you cast a spell, but because you are holding concentration on a spell.
That is giving an expiration for when Eldritch Strike expires. When the spell was cast does not matter. When you hit someone with a weapon attack, you have until the end of your next turn for ES to remain in effect.
Per Jeremy Crawford: Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast. This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.
He isn't really discussing recurring saving throws for the same one casting of the spell though. His point is that it doesn't matter when you cast the spell, i.e. on your turn or as a reaction. Not on whether or not a spell is cast for proceeding saves. (I really hate these weird non-answers Crawford tends to give).
A spell cast on preceding turns would not fit the feature description, because the save is not made as part of casting a spell, but as part of an ongoing spell effect.
Its the same as wanting to counterspell "hold person" a turn after it has been cast. When it was cast matters, even if the effects can be ongoing.
He specifically said that time limitation only pertains to how long the effects last for EK. Essentially, sometime between the time you hit them with a weapon attack, and the end of your next turn. If they make a save against one of your spells within that time frame, it works.
That is the only thing that the wording, “before the end of your next turn“ pertains to. He explicitly said as much.
Additionally, he said the spell could have been cast “at any point.“ He said nothing about the type of action that was used to cast the spell. That question wasn’t even asked.
The question was: ”Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
To which he answered “It works against a spell you cast at any point.”
What is the language that excludes recurring saving throws?
He specifically said that time limitation only pertains to how long the effects last for EK. Essentially, sometime between the time you hit them with a weapon attack, and the end of your next turn. If they make a save against one of your spells within that time frame, it works.
That is the only thing that the wording, “before the end of your next turn“ pertains to. He explicitly said as much.
Additionally, he said the spell could have been cast “at any point.“ He said nothing about the type of action that was used to cast the spell. That question wasn’t even asked.
The question was: ”Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
To which he answered “It works against a spell you cast at any point.”
If it works "against a spell you cast at any point" then it only works on a spell you actively cast, not ongoing spell effects from previous turns.
As in, it only works with spells you cast within at any point within the time frame Eldritch Strike takes effect: during the turn Eldritch Strike takes effect, during the rest of that round, the time of the next round leading up to your turn, or on your next turn. Those are the defined times when you can cast a spell with a saving throw and impose disadvantage.
This is the thing that annoys me about Crawford's answers a lot of the time; he is asked a yes or no question, and answers by just repeating the rules. Sometimes without any actual clarification. Its great for making people think, but it doesn't provide any clarity.
He specifically said that time limitation only pertains to how long the effects last for EK. Essentially, sometime between the time you hit them with a weapon attack, and the end of your next turn. If they make a save against one of your spells within that time frame, it works.
That is the only thing that the wording, “before the end of your next turn“ pertains to. He explicitly said as much.
Additionally, he said the spell could have been cast “at any point.“ He said nothing about the type of action that was used to cast the spell. That question wasn’t even asked.
The question was: ”Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
To which he answered “It works against a spell you cast at any point.”
If it works "against a spell you cast at any point" then it only works on a spell you actively cast, not ongoing spell effects from previous turns.
As in, it only works with spells you cast within at any point within the time frame Eldritch Strike takes effect: during the turn Eldritch Strike takes effect, during the rest of that round, the time of the next round leading up to your turn, or on your next turn. Those are the defined times when you can cast a spell with a saving throw and impose disadvantage.
This is the thing that annoys me about Crawford's answers a lot of the time; he is asked a yes or no question, and answers by just repeating the rules. Sometimes without any actual clarification. Its great for making people think, but it doesn't provide any clarity.
You did actively cast Hold Person. When did you cast it? As we established, it does not matter.
There is no wording in the description nor in what Crawford’s answer that says Eldritch Strike only applies to the first saving throw. As long as you hit the creature with a weapon attack on your last turn, it applies.
He specifically said that time limitation only pertains to how long the effects last for EK. Essentially, sometime between the time you hit them with a weapon attack, and the end of your next turn. If they make a save against one of your spells within that time frame, it works.
That is the only thing that the wording, “before the end of your next turn“ pertains to. He explicitly said as much.
Additionally, he said the spell could have been cast “at any point.“ He said nothing about the type of action that was used to cast the spell. That question wasn’t even asked.
The question was: ”Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
To which he answered “It works against a spell you cast at any point.”
If it works "against a spell you cast at any point" then it only works on a spell you actively cast, not ongoing spell effects from previous turns.
As in, it only works with spells you cast within at any point within the time frame Eldritch Strike takes effect: during the turn Eldritch Strike takes effect, during the rest of that round, the time of the next round leading up to your turn, or on your next turn. Those are the defined times when you can cast a spell with a saving throw and impose disadvantage.
This is the thing that annoys me about Crawford's answers a lot of the time; he is asked a yes or no question, and answers by just repeating the rules. Sometimes without any actual clarification. Its great for making people think, but it doesn't provide any clarity.
As far as I can tell, this disagreement comes from the fact that 'cast' can be both present and past tense. If you take it to mean past tense then you arrive at SeanJP's solution. If you take it as present tense you'll agree with Kronzypantz.
I would suggest that based on the original question, Crawford is saying what SeanJP thinks he's saying, but the language isn't 100% clear. I blame the English language.
He specifically said that time limitation only pertains to how long the effects last for EK. Essentially, sometime between the time you hit them with a weapon attack, and the end of your next turn. If they make a save against one of your spells within that time frame, it works.
That is the only thing that the wording, “before the end of your next turn“ pertains to. He explicitly said as much.
Additionally, he said the spell could have been cast “at any point.“ He said nothing about the type of action that was used to cast the spell. That question wasn’t even asked.
The question was: ”Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
To which he answered “It works against a spell you cast at any point.”
If it works "against a spell you cast at any point" then it only works on a spell you actively cast, not ongoing spell effects from previous turns.
As in, it only works with spells you cast within at any point within the time frame Eldritch Strike takes effect: during the turn Eldritch Strike takes effect, during the rest of that round, the time of the next round leading up to your turn, or on your next turn. Those are the defined times when you can cast a spell with a saving throw and impose disadvantage.
This is the thing that annoys me about Crawford's answers a lot of the time; he is asked a yes or no question, and answers by just repeating the rules. Sometimes without any actual clarification. Its great for making people think, but it doesn't provide any clarity.
You did actively cast Hold Person. When did you cast it? As we established, it does not matter.
There is no wording in the description nor in what Crawford’s answer that says Eldritch Strike only applies to the first saving throw. As long as you hit the creature with a weapon attack on your last turn, it applies.
It only applies when the spell is cast. That is in both Crawford's answer and the text of Eldritch Strike.
He specifically said that time limitation only pertains to how long the effects last for EK. Essentially, sometime between the time you hit them with a weapon attack, and the end of your next turn. If they make a save against one of your spells within that time frame, it works.
That is the only thing that the wording, “before the end of your next turn“ pertains to. He explicitly said as much.
Additionally, he said the spell could have been cast “at any point.“ He said nothing about the type of action that was used to cast the spell. That question wasn’t even asked.
The question was: ”Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
To which he answered “It works against a spell you cast at any point.”
If it works "against a spell you cast at any point" then it only works on a spell you actively cast, not ongoing spell effects from previous turns.
As in, it only works with spells you cast within at any point within the time frame Eldritch Strike takes effect: during the turn Eldritch Strike takes effect, during the rest of that round, the time of the next round leading up to your turn, or on your next turn. Those are the defined times when you can cast a spell with a saving throw and impose disadvantage.
This is the thing that annoys me about Crawford's answers a lot of the time; he is asked a yes or no question, and answers by just repeating the rules. Sometimes without any actual clarification. Its great for making people think, but it doesn't provide any clarity.
You did actively cast Hold Person. When did you cast it? As we established, it does not matter.
There is no wording in the description nor in what Crawford’s answer that says Eldritch Strike only applies to the first saving throw. As long as you hit the creature with a weapon attack on your last turn, it applies.
It only applies when the spell is cast. That is in both Crawford's answer and the text of Eldritch Strike.
The opposite is true.
Question asked: “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
Answer: “Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast. This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.”
"Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast."
No where in there does it say a spell that you have cast.
"This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.”
Yeah, it works against a spell you cast at any point once Eldritch Strike is activated. Not "against a spell you cast or have cast at any point." For instance, to read it this way we would have to say that if they succeeded on that saving throw before you attacked next turn, eldritch strike would retroactively impose disadvantage. That is "at any point." But that would be silly.
You are trying to read "cast" as both present and past tense, but we have verbs to show tense, like have and had. But Crawford is saying Eldritch Strike works on a spell you presently cast, just like its description says.
Again, its annoying that he just restates the rules in a way that isn't clear whether or not he is actually disagreeing with the questioner. Its not very helpful.
"Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast."
No where in there does it say a spell that you have cast.
"This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.”
Yeah, it works against a spell you cast at any point once Eldritch Strike is activated. Not "against a spell you cast or have cast at any point." For instance, to read it this way we would have to say that if they succeeded on that saving throw before you attacked next turn, eldritch strike would retroactively impose disadvantage. That is "at any point." But that would be silly.
You are trying to read "cast" as both present and past tense, but we have verbs to show tense, like have and had. But Crawford is saying Eldritch Strike works on a spell you presently cast, just like its description says.
Again, its annoying that he just restates the rules in a way that isn't clear whether or not he is actually disagreeing with the questioner. Its not very helpful.
Saying "have" cast is not necessary. Let's look at the wording in context.
"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
"Cast" can be past or future tense, regardless of whether the word "have" is in there. They simply did not state time limitations, nor any sort of window for when the spell must be cast. As Crawford clarified, the "before the end of your next turn" excerpt specifically pertains to the window for when Eldritch Strike is active; that is, between the time you make the weapon attack to the end of your next turn. "You cast" is simply specifying *who's* spell it must be. In other words, you can't keep feeding your Wizard disadvantaged spell save DC's at will. It must be a spell you cast.
Here's the question again: Question asked: “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
Now ask yourself, previous to what? Since a normal, legal use of Eldritch Strike that everyone can agree on is: (1) You attack with a weapon, then (2) on your next turn you cast a spell and the target has disadvantage on the save. The only reasonable interpretation of what the questioner meant by "previously cast" is that the spell was cast previous to making the weapon attack. In other words, spell first, then weapon attack. How much previously? As Crawford explained, "it works against a spell you cast at any point."
When the questioner asked if ES works on a spell you "had previously cast," according to your interpretation, previous to what?
You wrote: " For instance, to read it this way we would have to say that if they succeeded on that saving throw before you attacked next turn, eldritch strike would retroactively impose disadvantage. That is "at any point." But that would be silly."
No, it wouldn't. It does not retroactively impose disadvantage to past saving throws. Only new saves from a spell you cast in the past.
Crawford doesn't say "yes" though; he just restates the text. And the text says it works for a spell you cast once eldritch strike's effect has been activated. He never just comes out and says "yes, you could have cast the spell on earlier turns and now impose disadvantage on associated saves from the spell's ongoing effects."
Also how is "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" inclusive of past tense? Its specifying an action you will take (casting a spell) between when eldritch strike activates and when it runs out? Those are all the relative "points" Crawford is talking about. Its not "spell you have cast or cast..."
Its an annoying habit of Crawfords to not just give a direct answer. He can't just say "yes" 99% of the time.
Crawford doesn't say "yes" though; he just restates the text. And the text says it works for a spell you cast once eldritch strike's effect has been activated. He never just comes out and says "yes, you could have cast the spell on earlier turns and now impose disadvantage on associated saves from the spell's ongoing effects."
Also how is "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" inclusive of past tense? Its specifying an action you will take (casting a spell) between when eldritch strike activates and when it runs out? Those are all the relative "points" Crawford is talking about. Its not "spell you have cast or cast..."
Its an annoying habit of Crawfords to not just give a direct answer. He can't just say "yes" 99% of the time.
We can both agree that gives doodoo answers. A lot.
The "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" is a sentence fragment that is out of context.
"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
It's explaining 2 things.
1. The disadvantage is against a spell you cast.
2. The ES effect of the weapon attack lasts until the end of your next turn.
Related to the question that was asked, “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?” - according to your interpretation, previous to what?
Crawford doesn't say "yes" though; he just restates the text. And the text says it works for a spell you cast once eldritch strike's effect has been activated. He never just comes out and says "yes, you could have cast the spell on earlier turns and now impose disadvantage on associated saves from the spell's ongoing effects."
Also how is "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" inclusive of past tense? Its specifying an action you will take (casting a spell) between when eldritch strike activates and when it runs out? Those are all the relative "points" Crawford is talking about. Its not "spell you have cast or cast..."
Its an annoying habit of Crawfords to not just give a direct answer. He can't just say "yes" 99% of the time.
We can both agree that gives doodoo answers. A lot.
The "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" is a sentence fragment that is out of context.
"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
It's explaining 2 things.
1. The disadvantage is against a spell you cast.
2. The ES effect of the weapon attack lasts until the end of your next turn.
Related to the question that was asked, “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?” - according to your interpretation, previous to what?
My interpretation is that it doesn't matter what is meant by previously; Crawford restates the rules pedantically assuming that answers the specific question (by which he means it requires a spell being cast now, not one having been cast previously).
Crawford doesn't say "yes" though; he just restates the text. And the text says it works for a spell you cast once eldritch strike's effect has been activated. He never just comes out and says "yes, you could have cast the spell on earlier turns and now impose disadvantage on associated saves from the spell's ongoing effects."
Also how is "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" inclusive of past tense? Its specifying an action you will take (casting a spell) between when eldritch strike activates and when it runs out? Those are all the relative "points" Crawford is talking about. Its not "spell you have cast or cast..."
Its an annoying habit of Crawfords to not just give a direct answer. He can't just say "yes" 99% of the time.
We can both agree that gives doodoo answers. A lot.
The "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" is a sentence fragment that is out of context.
"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
It's explaining 2 things.
1. The disadvantage is against a spell you cast.
2. The ES effect of the weapon attack lasts until the end of your next turn.
Related to the question that was asked, “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?” - according to your interpretation, previous to what?
My interpretation is that it doesn't matter what is meant by previously; Crawford restates the rules pedantically assuming that answers the specific question (by which he means it requires a spell being cast now, not one having been cast previously).
Why did you begin with “my interpretation is“ and then followed it up with an excuse not to give your interpretation?
If you give me your interpretation I can then explain why the question that was asked matters.
Good game, well played English. Let's make a word past and future tense, what could go wrong?
I think the best option here if you can't decide on the ruling from wording alone is to weigh up whether it breaks the game, if yes don't allow it, if no, go for it.
The best bet of course is to have your Rune Knight ally enter a prophetic state and make sure its saves on subsequent turns are always made with disadvantage.
I gave my interpretation. Im sorry I do not agree that Crawford thinks time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike. But that is my interpretation; he is saying the spell must be cast in the time frame when Eldritch Strike is active.
I gave my interpretation. Im sorry I do not agree that Crawford thinks time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike. But that is my interpretation; he is saying the spell must be cast in the time frame when Eldritch Strike is active.
I asked you to interpret what the questioner meant by "previous" - and you literally said "it does not matter" (which is an excuse NOT to answer). And now you claim "I gave my interpretation" when you know as a fact you did not.
You also know I am not arguing that Crawford thinks "time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike, " yet you made a conscious decision to mischaracterize my argument.
You, sir, are a dishonest interlocutor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah. You have to cast a new spell after eldritch strike goes into effect, a spell already cast wouldn't benefit from it after the fact.
That is giving an expiration for when Eldritch Strike expires. When the spell was cast does not matter. When you hit someone with a weapon attack, you have until the end of your next turn for ES to remain in effect.
Per Jeremy Crawford: Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast. This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.
Jeremy Crawford on Twitter: "Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast. This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn. #DnD https://t.co/JJVjjFs1wm" / Twitter
This is not correct. See my post above.
He isn't really discussing recurring saving throws for the same one casting of the spell though. His point is that it doesn't matter when you cast the spell, i.e. on your turn or as a reaction. Not on whether or not a spell is cast for proceeding saves. (I really hate these weird non-answers Crawford tends to give).
A spell cast on preceding turns would not fit the feature description, because the save is not made as part of casting a spell, but as part of an ongoing spell effect.
Its the same as wanting to counterspell "hold person" a turn after it has been cast. When it was cast matters, even if the effects can be ongoing.
This is getting off topic...
But interesting.
Chilling kinda vibe.
He specifically said that time limitation only pertains to how long the effects last for EK. Essentially, sometime between the time you hit them with a weapon attack, and the end of your next turn. If they make a save against one of your spells within that time frame, it works.
That is the only thing that the wording, “before the end of your next turn“ pertains to. He explicitly said as much.
Additionally, he said the spell could have been cast “at any point.“ He said nothing about the type of action that was used to cast the spell. That question wasn’t even asked.
The question was: ”Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
To which he answered “It works against a spell you cast at any point.”
What is the language that excludes recurring saving throws?
If it works "against a spell you cast at any point" then it only works on a spell you actively cast, not ongoing spell effects from previous turns.
As in, it only works with spells you cast
within at any point within the time frame Eldritch Strike takes effect: during the turn Eldritch Strike takes effect, during the rest of that round, the time of the next round leading up to your turn, or on your next turn. Those are the defined times when you can cast a spell with a saving throw and impose disadvantage.This is the thing that annoys me about Crawford's answers a lot of the time; he is asked a yes or no question, and answers by just repeating the rules. Sometimes without any actual clarification. Its great for making people think, but it doesn't provide any clarity.
You did actively cast Hold Person. When did you cast it? As we established, it does not matter.
There is no wording in the description nor in what Crawford’s answer that says Eldritch Strike only applies to the first saving throw. As long as you hit the creature with a weapon attack on your last turn, it applies.
As far as I can tell, this disagreement comes from the fact that 'cast' can be both present and past tense. If you take it to mean past tense then you arrive at SeanJP's solution. If you take it as present tense you'll agree with Kronzypantz.
I would suggest that based on the original question, Crawford is saying what SeanJP thinks he's saying, but the language isn't 100% clear. I blame the English language.
Chilling kinda vibe.
It only applies when the spell is cast. That is in both Crawford's answer and the text of Eldritch Strike.
The opposite is true.
Question asked: “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
Answer: “Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast. This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.”
"Eldritch Strike imposes disadvantage on the next saving throw the target makes against a spell you cast."
No where in there does it say a spell that you have cast.
"This benefit expires at the end of your next turn, and it works against a spell you cast at any point. The key is that the save is made before the end of your next turn.”
Yeah, it works against a spell you cast at any point once Eldritch Strike is activated. Not "against a spell you cast or have cast at any point." For instance, to read it this way we would have to say that if they succeeded on that saving throw before you attacked next turn, eldritch strike would retroactively impose disadvantage. That is "at any point." But that would be silly.
You are trying to read "cast" as both present and past tense, but we have verbs to show tense, like have and had. But Crawford is saying Eldritch Strike works on a spell you presently cast, just like its description says.
Again, its annoying that he just restates the rules in a way that isn't clear whether or not he is actually disagreeing with the questioner. Its not very helpful.
Saying "have" cast is not necessary. Let's look at the wording in context.
"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
"Cast" can be past or future tense, regardless of whether the word "have" is in there. They simply did not state time limitations, nor any sort of window for when the spell must be cast. As Crawford clarified, the "before the end of your next turn" excerpt specifically pertains to the window for when Eldritch Strike is active; that is, between the time you make the weapon attack to the end of your next turn. "You cast" is simply specifying *who's* spell it must be. In other words, you can't keep feeding your Wizard disadvantaged spell save DC's at will. It must be a spell you cast.
Here's the question again: Question asked: “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?”
Now ask yourself, previous to what? Since a normal, legal use of Eldritch Strike that everyone can agree on is: (1) You attack with a weapon, then (2) on your next turn you cast a spell and the target has disadvantage on the save. The only reasonable interpretation of what the questioner meant by "previously cast" is that the spell was cast previous to making the weapon attack. In other words, spell first, then weapon attack. How much previously? As Crawford explained, "it works against a spell you cast at any point."
When the questioner asked if ES works on a spell you "had previously cast," according to your interpretation, previous to what?
You wrote: " For instance, to read it this way we would have to say that if they succeeded on that saving throw before you attacked next turn, eldritch strike would retroactively impose disadvantage. That is "at any point." But that would be silly."
No, it wouldn't. It does not retroactively impose disadvantage to past saving throws. Only new saves from a spell you cast in the past.
Crawford doesn't say "yes" though; he just restates the text. And the text says it works for a spell you cast once eldritch strike's effect has been activated. He never just comes out and says "yes, you could have cast the spell on earlier turns and now impose disadvantage on associated saves from the spell's ongoing effects."
Also how is "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" inclusive of past tense? Its specifying an action you will take (casting a spell) between when eldritch strike activates and when it runs out? Those are all the relative "points" Crawford is talking about. Its not "spell you have cast or cast..."
Its an annoying habit of Crawfords to not just give a direct answer. He can't just say "yes" 99% of the time.
There is also more to the conversation that clarifies this before Crawford started just restating the rules:
"When the fighter's Eldritch Strike is activated, its benefit lasts until the end of your next turn, which means the feature is designed to benefit you at some point in that time frame."
https://www.sageadvice.eu/can-eldritch-strike-impose-disadvantage-on-a-saving-throw-for-a-spell-you-had-previously-cast/
We can both agree that gives doodoo answers. A lot.
The "spell you cast before the end of your next turn" is a sentence fragment that is out of context.
"When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
It's explaining 2 things.
1. The disadvantage is against a spell you cast.
2. The ES effect of the weapon attack lasts until the end of your next turn.
Related to the question that was asked, “Can Eldritch Strike impose disadvantage on a saving throw for a spell you had previously cast?” - according to your interpretation, previous to what?
My interpretation is that it doesn't matter what is meant by previously; Crawford restates the rules pedantically assuming that answers the specific question (by which he means it requires a spell being cast now, not one having been cast previously).
Why did you begin with “my interpretation is“ and then followed it up with an excuse not to give your interpretation?
If you give me your interpretation I can then explain why the question that was asked matters.
Good game, well played English. Let's make a word past and future tense, what could go wrong?
I think the best option here if you can't decide on the ruling from wording alone is to weigh up whether it breaks the game, if yes don't allow it, if no, go for it.
The best bet of course is to have your Rune Knight ally enter a prophetic state and make sure its saves on subsequent turns are always made with disadvantage.
I gave my interpretation. Im sorry I do not agree that Crawford thinks time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike. But that is my interpretation; he is saying the spell must be cast in the time frame when Eldritch Strike is active.
I asked you to interpret what the questioner meant by "previous" - and you literally said "it does not matter" (which is an excuse NOT to answer). And now you claim "I gave my interpretation" when you know as a fact you did not.
You also know I am not arguing that Crawford thinks "time travel shenanigans are allowed by eldritch strike, " yet you made a conscious decision to mischaracterize my argument.
You, sir, are a dishonest interlocutor.