Personally I thought the school limits on the classes were good both for flavor and to keep some focus.
The school limit on EK, in the 2014 rules, amount to "you get abjuration and something that's completely useless to you"; evocation is literally the worst possible choice (even necromancy is better). In the 2024 rules evocation becomes a viable choice at level 18+ because of improved war magic.
This is a problem with spell scaling more generally. Because WotC deliberately built in a jump in spell power level for full casters at 5th level (3rd level spells) it means all half and 1/3 casters feel short changed in that gap between full casters getting 3rd level spells and them getting 3rd level spells. TBH there is also the problem of 3rd level caster as well getting a huge boost in number of spell slots: from 3x 1st to 4x1st + 2x 2nd - more than doubling your casting power - there is again that sore spot for 1/2 and 1/3 casters getting to their 3rd caster level.
That's true! An eldritch knight is a fighter first and foremost. But also something that I'd like to mention that doesn't seem to be brought up... Well, anywhere is that as an eldritch knight your not just another super strong soldier or some nimble archer... You're smart!
is a perfectly well-built EK... and will be fine with an Intelligence of 8.
That’s true, but I don’t think it would be as fun. I think I’ll keep my int for some other spells that do require a spell casting ability score and some skills for out of combat roleplaying opportunities. Like perhaps surprising a wizard with your knowledge as a fighter, or perhaps solving a puzzle nobody expected you as a fighter to solve.
That’s true, but I don’t think it would be as fun. I think I’ll keep my int for some other spells that do require a spell casting ability score and some skills for out of combat roleplaying opportunities.
Well, you're free to take Int, you just don't need to. The problem with taking spells that require a spell casting ability score is that, at level 5+, anything you use as a direct attack is so much worse than just plain taking the attack that you're wasting your action, so the only spells that it makes sense to cast are buffs -- and buffs almost never require a casting score.
That’s true, but I don’t think it would be as fun. I think I’ll keep my int for some other spells that do require a spell casting ability score and some skills for out of combat roleplaying opportunities.
Well, you're free to take Int, you just don't need to. The problem with taking spells that require a spell casting ability score is that, at level 5+, anything you use as a direct attack is so much worse than just plain taking the attack that you're wasting your action, so the only spells that it makes sense to cast are buffs -- and buffs almost never require a casting score.
That's only true, if you're limited to Evocation/Abjuration. When EK released to pick up other spells there are quite a few you might want that do rely on spellcasting ability e.g.
Illusions - lots of fun in various situations but most rely on spellcasting ability score to make them convincing
Debuffs/Battlefield control - Tasha's Mind Whip, Hideous Laughter, Thunderwave, Gust of Wind
Social - Suggestion, Charm Person, Detect Thoughts
At very high levels Fireball, and Counterspell both benefit from not dumping INT
You're also assuming that you can just take the Attack action every turn, but IME at level 7+ it is very common for a fighter not to be able to take the Attack action - they might be restrained, frightened, or poisoned, or the enemy might be invisible, flying, burrowing, or behind cover. Having an option other than Attacking can be really nice.
So, a few counterpoints. One, the "attacking is strictly better" argument assumes you're only looking to hit a single target. If you can hit two targets with Burning Hands, that's 6d6 net damage in play, making it about even with two greatsword attacks with +4 STR. And yes, there's "what if they make the save", but by the same token there's "what if your attack misses", and with half on save if you have one pass and one fail that's ~15 damage on average, and with one hit and one miss with this hypothetical greatsword that's ~14 damage on average. You can fiddle with semantics and statistics of what's truly the more "optimum" scenario, but clearly the gulf between magic damage and weapon damage is not that vast if one good roll and one bad roll have approximately equal results. And once Shatter is an option the AoE is a bit stronger, easier to place effectively, and also functions as a long range option. And Burning Sphere lets you stack bonus action damage with sword and board or two-handed arrangements. There's some fall-off at level 11 once you've got the third weapon attack, but at that point you're also making every creature you hit disadvantaged against their next save against you, so there's actually a degree of synergy in play as you tee several targets up for an AoE or a single target up for a debuff like Hold Person or Blindness/Deafness- and with Action Surge you can either blast the AoE in the same round or follow up the debuff on your next turn with a round of attacks against a vulnerable target if it works. Two levels later you get a few AoE bursts that match your basic weapons damage potential again as well.
Second, there's the simple fact that EK is a bad choice if what you're looking for is spell utility. 3rd caster progression means you're a step behind the half casters, two of which also prep from a list on LR instead of working from a fixed spell pool and all of which will have more spells readied to choose from than an EK. So if you're looking to blend hitting stuff with weapons with pulling out stuff like Detect Magic, Levitate, Spider Climb, etc. then EK isn't really the class for you. Or at least it's "sub-optimal", which seems to mean it might as well not exist as an option according to the arguments in favor of open schools.
Now, if you want to argue that the subclass features that support spellcasting are pretty limited and take a while to come online I can agree with that, but saying weapons are strictly better than Evocation is only true if you try to use Evocation like a weapon attack, rather than looking at how it best meshes with a Fighter. No, you're not going to throw elemental destruction around like a full Wizard. For that particular weapon/spell experience, you want Bladesinger. But when you use Evocations in ways that weapon attacks can't cover as opposed to as a replacement for weapon attacks, the performance difference is much less significant.
The new EK is exactly the one we needed and while I think it would’ve been OP in 2014, subclass development and power creep of 5e makes it fit in nicely now in 2024.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The new EK is exactly the one we needed and while I think it would’ve been OP in 2014, subclass development and power creep of 5e makes it fit in nicely now in 2024.
I think I agree! Watching the video for the new and improved fighter class was a real treat, and the EK was (predictably) the highlight of the video (and I think in general thus far, but the oath of glory changes and berserker changes also got my pretty hyped)
The new EK is exactly the one we needed and while I think it would’ve been OP in 2014, subclass development and power creep of 5e makes it fit in nicely now in 2024.
Really? Which fighter subclass is better than the EK at any aspect of the game? In the 2024 version I can't see myself or any player interested in optimizing ever play any subclass other than EK. IMO that is bad for the game.
most of the optimizers I know went straight for battlemaster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Yeah, either way you play EK is hardly “optimal”. If you play it like you’re supposed to with mostly damage and defense spells you’ve got some AoE and staying power but your weapon attacks will be fairly basic. If you try to go toolkit instead, then you end up with just the basic weapon attacks and maybe one or two moves like Misty Step. The former at least gives you some combat alternatives that could influence your dpr, the latter is imo just a bad Ranger knock-off since your casting is weaker and your subclass features are built to support damage via using attack spells in combat, which you’re not doing.
Really? Which fighter subclass is better than the EK at any aspect of the game? In the 2024 version I can't see myself or any player interested in optimizing ever play any subclass other than EK. IMO that is bad for the game.
Really? Which fighter subclass is better than the EK at any aspect of the game? In the 2024 version I can't see myself or any player interested in optimizing ever play any subclass other than EK. IMO that is bad for the game.
Battle Masters exist?
In what respect is Battle Master better than EK? Most of the versatility of Battle Master is now available to all fighters via Weapon Mastery, EK deals more damage than Battle Master because of the BB/GFB combo with Extra Attack, and with open choice of any spell from the Wizard spell list they have a lot more out-of-combat utility.
PS Reminder: I'm talking about 2024 version of the game, not 2014.
In what respect is Battle Master better than EK? Most of the versatility of Battle Master is now available to all fighters via Weapon Mastery, EK deals more damage than Battle Master because of the BB/GFB combo with Extra Attack, and with open choice of any spell from the Wizard spell list they have a lot more out-of-combat utility.
PS Reminder: I'm talking about 2024 version of the game, not 2014.
I am too; if you were talking about the 2014 EK I would laugh at you. I will say that the comparison is closer than it was in 2014, but (particularly for the tier 1-2 range that most games sit in) the BM is still probably stronger.
Very little of the versatility of battle master is available via weapon mastery -- mostly the push, trip, and sweeping attack options -- and those weren't really the moves you'd use for power anyway, unless they've modified things a lot you probably want to use menacing attack, parry, and precision attack (with commander's strike on your sideboard, as it's only particularly useful if you're teamed with a rogue) as your combat options, with ambush and commanding presence for non-combat (tactical assessment is kinda meh). I will say that in the level 11-14 range the EK is probably overall stronger.
In what respect is Battle Master better than EK? Most of the versatility of Battle Master is now available to all fighters via Weapon Mastery, EK deals more damage than Battle Master because of the BB/GFB combo with Extra Attack, and with open choice of any spell from the Wizard spell list they have a lot more out-of-combat utility.
PS Reminder: I'm talking about 2024 version of the game, not 2014.
I am too; if you were talking about the 2014 EK I would laugh at you. I will say that the comparison is closer than it was in 2014, but (particularly for the tier 1-2 range that most games sit in) the BM is still probably stronger.
Very little of the versatility of battle master is available via weapon mastery -- mostly the push, trip, and sweeping attack options -- and those weren't really the moves you'd use for power anyway, unless they've modified things a lot you probably want to use menacing attack, parry, and precision attack (with commander's strike on your sideboard, as it's only particularly useful if you're teamed with a rogue) as your combat options, with ambush and commanding presence for non-combat (tactical assessment is kinda meh). I will say that in the level 11-14 range the EK is probably overall stronger.
The Shield spell is better at "parrying" than Parry, Precision attack is mostly useless now that the -5th/+10dmg feats no longer provide that option, Ambush, Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment are all overshadowed by the Fighter-wide ability to use their Second Wind to give a bigger bonus to any skill check.
So you've got one: Menacing Attack, that is something that the EK can't do better than the Battlemaster.
I'm pretty excited about the Eldritch Knight updates. I think true strike is going to be popular among EK builds, which is a statement I can certainly appreciate the irony of after the last ten years of that spell existing.
The new EK is exactly the one we needed and while I think it would’ve been OP in 2014, subclass development and power creep of 5e makes it fit in nicely now in 2024.
Really? Which fighter subclass is better than the EK at any aspect of the game? In the 2024 version I can't see myself or any player interested in optimizing ever play any subclass other than EK. IMO that is bad for the game.
Battlemaster is way more popular than EK and I don't see that changing. And Champion is actually the most popular subclass in the game. And now a bunch of new players are going to get to experience the Jedi joy of the Psi Warrior. Fighter is in a good spot.
The Shield spell is better at "parrying" than Parry, Precision attack is mostly useless now that the -5th/+10dmg feats no longer provide that option, Ambush, Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment are all overshadowed by the Fighter-wide ability to use their Second Wind to give a bigger bonus to any skill check.
Parry works against critical hits. It's pretty bad after tier 1, but it's fine early. Precision attack is usable after rolling, it's really just "turn a miss into a hit". Ambush/Commanding Presence/Tactical Assessment stack with tactical mind.
The Shield spell is better at "parrying" than Parry, Precision attack is mostly useless now that the -5th/+10dmg feats no longer provide that option, Ambush, Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment are all overshadowed by the Fighter-wide ability to use their Second Wind to give a bigger bonus to any skill check.
Parry works against critical hits. It's pretty bad after tier 1, but it's fine early. Precision attack is usable after rolling, it's really just "turn a miss into a hit".
Except it's not. I've seen plenty of times where the BattleMaster rolls a 1 or a 2 on their SD and Precision attack still fails to hit. IME Precision attack is a "50% chance to turn a miss into a hit", if your attacks are dealing 1d8+4 damage on a hit then the extra damage from Precision attack is roughly the same as the maneuvers that add 1d8 damage to an attack that's already hit.
The Shield spell is better at "parrying" than Parry, Precision attack is mostly useless now that the -5th/+10dmg feats no longer provide that option, Ambush, Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment are all overshadowed by the Fighter-wide ability to use their Second Wind to give a bigger bonus to any skill check.
Parry works against critical hits. It's pretty bad after tier 1, but it's fine early. Precision attack is usable after rolling, it's really just "turn a miss into a hit".
Except it's not. I've seen plenty of times where the BattleMaster rolls a 1 or a 2 on their SD and Precision attack still fails to hit. IME Precision attack is a "50% chance to turn a miss into a hit", if your attacks are dealing 1d8+4 damage on a hit then the extra damage from Precision attack is roughly the same as the maneuvers that add 1d8 damage to an attack that's already hit.
Agile, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Yes, EK is more powerful than BM and Champion, but I can guarantee you that popularity-wise it will be the reverse order - again. No matter how good EK is, most people who roll Fighter aren't looking to cast spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a problem with spell scaling more generally. Because WotC deliberately built in a jump in spell power level for full casters at 5th level (3rd level spells) it means all half and 1/3 casters feel short changed in that gap between full casters getting 3rd level spells and them getting 3rd level spells. TBH there is also the problem of 3rd level caster as well getting a huge boost in number of spell slots: from 3x 1st to 4x1st + 2x 2nd - more than doubling your casting power - there is again that sore spot for 1/2 and 1/3 casters getting to their 3rd caster level.
That’s true, but I don’t think it would be as fun. I think I’ll keep my int for some other spells that do require a spell casting ability score and some skills for out of combat roleplaying opportunities. Like perhaps surprising a wizard with your knowledge as a fighter, or perhaps solving a puzzle nobody expected you as a fighter to solve.
Well, you're free to take Int, you just don't need to. The problem with taking spells that require a spell casting ability score is that, at level 5+, anything you use as a direct attack is so much worse than just plain taking the attack that you're wasting your action, so the only spells that it makes sense to cast are buffs -- and buffs almost never require a casting score.
That's only true, if you're limited to Evocation/Abjuration. When EK released to pick up other spells there are quite a few you might want that do rely on spellcasting ability e.g.
You're also assuming that you can just take the Attack action every turn, but IME at level 7+ it is very common for a fighter not to be able to take the Attack action - they might be restrained, frightened, or poisoned, or the enemy might be invisible, flying, burrowing, or behind cover. Having an option other than Attacking can be really nice.
So, a few counterpoints. One, the "attacking is strictly better" argument assumes you're only looking to hit a single target. If you can hit two targets with Burning Hands, that's 6d6 net damage in play, making it about even with two greatsword attacks with +4 STR. And yes, there's "what if they make the save", but by the same token there's "what if your attack misses", and with half on save if you have one pass and one fail that's ~15 damage on average, and with one hit and one miss with this hypothetical greatsword that's ~14 damage on average. You can fiddle with semantics and statistics of what's truly the more "optimum" scenario, but clearly the gulf between magic damage and weapon damage is not that vast if one good roll and one bad roll have approximately equal results. And once Shatter is an option the AoE is a bit stronger, easier to place effectively, and also functions as a long range option. And Burning Sphere lets you stack bonus action damage with sword and board or two-handed arrangements. There's some fall-off at level 11 once you've got the third weapon attack, but at that point you're also making every creature you hit disadvantaged against their next save against you, so there's actually a degree of synergy in play as you tee several targets up for an AoE or a single target up for a debuff like Hold Person or Blindness/Deafness- and with Action Surge you can either blast the AoE in the same round or follow up the debuff on your next turn with a round of attacks against a vulnerable target if it works. Two levels later you get a few AoE bursts that match your basic weapons damage potential again as well.
Second, there's the simple fact that EK is a bad choice if what you're looking for is spell utility. 3rd caster progression means you're a step behind the half casters, two of which also prep from a list on LR instead of working from a fixed spell pool and all of which will have more spells readied to choose from than an EK. So if you're looking to blend hitting stuff with weapons with pulling out stuff like Detect Magic, Levitate, Spider Climb, etc. then EK isn't really the class for you. Or at least it's "sub-optimal", which seems to mean it might as well not exist as an option according to the arguments in favor of open schools.
Now, if you want to argue that the subclass features that support spellcasting are pretty limited and take a while to come online I can agree with that, but saying weapons are strictly better than Evocation is only true if you try to use Evocation like a weapon attack, rather than looking at how it best meshes with a Fighter. No, you're not going to throw elemental destruction around like a full Wizard. For that particular weapon/spell experience, you want Bladesinger. But when you use Evocations in ways that weapon attacks can't cover as opposed to as a replacement for weapon attacks, the performance difference is much less significant.
The new EK is exactly the one we needed and while I think it would’ve been OP in 2014, subclass development and power creep of 5e makes it fit in nicely now in 2024.
I am pretty excited by the changes to EK.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think I agree! Watching the video for the new and improved fighter class was a real treat, and the EK was (predictably) the highlight of the video (and I think in general thus far, but the oath of glory changes and berserker changes also got my pretty hyped)
Really? Which fighter subclass is better than the EK at any aspect of the game? In the 2024 version I can't see myself or any player interested in optimizing ever play any subclass other than EK. IMO that is bad for the game.
most of the optimizers I know went straight for battlemaster.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yeah, either way you play EK is hardly “optimal”. If you play it like you’re supposed to with mostly damage and defense spells you’ve got some AoE and staying power but your weapon attacks will be fairly basic. If you try to go toolkit instead, then you end up with just the basic weapon attacks and maybe one or two moves like Misty Step. The former at least gives you some combat alternatives that could influence your dpr, the latter is imo just a bad Ranger knock-off since your casting is weaker and your subclass features are built to support damage via using attack spells in combat, which you’re not doing.
Battle Masters exist?
In what respect is Battle Master better than EK? Most of the versatility of Battle Master is now available to all fighters via Weapon Mastery, EK deals more damage than Battle Master because of the BB/GFB combo with Extra Attack, and with open choice of any spell from the Wizard spell list they have a lot more out-of-combat utility.
PS Reminder: I'm talking about 2024 version of the game, not 2014.
I am too; if you were talking about the 2014 EK I would laugh at you. I will say that the comparison is closer than it was in 2014, but (particularly for the tier 1-2 range that most games sit in) the BM is still probably stronger.
Very little of the versatility of battle master is available via weapon mastery -- mostly the push, trip, and sweeping attack options -- and those weren't really the moves you'd use for power anyway, unless they've modified things a lot you probably want to use menacing attack, parry, and precision attack (with commander's strike on your sideboard, as it's only particularly useful if you're teamed with a rogue) as your combat options, with ambush and commanding presence for non-combat (tactical assessment is kinda meh). I will say that in the level 11-14 range the EK is probably overall stronger.
The Shield spell is better at "parrying" than Parry, Precision attack is mostly useless now that the -5th/+10dmg feats no longer provide that option, Ambush, Commanding Presence and Tactical Assessment are all overshadowed by the Fighter-wide ability to use their Second Wind to give a bigger bonus to any skill check.
So you've got one: Menacing Attack, that is something that the EK can't do better than the Battlemaster.
I'm pretty excited about the Eldritch Knight updates. I think true strike is going to be popular among EK builds, which is a statement I can certainly appreciate the irony of after the last ten years of that spell existing.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Battlemaster is way more popular than EK and I don't see that changing. And Champion is actually the most popular subclass in the game. And now a bunch of new players are going to get to experience the Jedi joy of the Psi Warrior. Fighter is in a good spot.
Parry works against critical hits. It's pretty bad after tier 1, but it's fine early. Precision attack is usable after rolling, it's really just "turn a miss into a hit". Ambush/Commanding Presence/Tactical Assessment stack with tactical mind.
Except it's not. I've seen plenty of times where the BattleMaster rolls a 1 or a 2 on their SD and Precision attack still fails to hit. IME Precision attack is a "50% chance to turn a miss into a hit", if your attacks are dealing 1d8+4 damage on a hit then the extra damage from Precision attack is roughly the same as the maneuvers that add 1d8 damage to an attack that's already hit.
Agile, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Yes, EK is more powerful than BM and Champion, but I can guarantee you that popularity-wise it will be the reverse order - again. No matter how good EK is, most people who roll Fighter aren't looking to cast spells.