"At 10th level, you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells. 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."
If an Eldritch Knight multi-class uses Thunderous Smite as a bonus action and then Booming Blade as an action, which of the following happens?
The Strength Save from Thunderous Smite benefits from Eldritch Strike and is therefore made at disadvantage, increasing the synergy.
The Thunderous Smite had already begun (though not finished), when the hit triggered Eldritch Strike, and so does not benefit.
Input with reasoning would be appreciated, especially if I missed something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
Number 1. You have to hit in order for Thunderous Smite to force a save so I say the hit comes first, inflicting the disadvantage, then the save happens at a disadvantage. Just remember that the secondary effect for Booming Blade has to trigger off of willing movement, so the push from Thunderous Smite won't cause it to go off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Number 1. You have to hit in order for Thunderous Smite to force a save so I say the hit comes first, inflicting the disadvantage, then the save happens at a disadvantage. Just remember that the secondary effect for Booming Blade has to trigger off of willing movement, so the push from Thunderous Smite won't cause it to go off.
I agree but I am also curious about the wording ‘against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.’ Which, is ambiguous in regards to a spell cast before this effect even started.
Also, yeah I know about the willing movement, the point is that it adds damage whilst also disengaging.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
I agree but I am also curious about the wording ‘against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.’ Which, is ambiguous in regards to a spell cast before this effect even started.
Oh, hmm ... you're right that is a little tricky, it changes depending on whether you look at (a spell you cast) (before the end of your next turn) or (a spell) (you cast before the end of your next turn). The first way you'd say yes, this is a spell I cast and it is before the end of my next turn. The second way you'd say yes it is a spell I cast, but I didn't cast it before the end of my next turn. In general I try to be generous with my players, so I would probably go for the first parsing and let them do it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think the wording is ambiguous, but the intent is pretty clearly 2. What if the spell was cast three turns ago but has an ongoing effect that calls for saves? Most people would agree that the intent is that “a spell you cast before the end of your next turn” doesn’t include spells you’ve already cast. But “cast” looks the same in the present and in the past tense, so sure, it’s a bit ambiguous.
I think the wording is ambiguous, but the intent is pretty clearly 2. What if the spell was cast three turns ago but has an ongoing effect that calls for saves? Most people would agree that the intent is that “a spell you cast before the end of your next turn” doesn’t include spells you’ve already cast. But “cast” looks the same in the present and in the past tense, so sure, it’s a bit ambiguous.
True, but it's still a spell I cast and shouldn't saves caused by my spells benefit from my Eldritch Strike? I don't see what is gained from specifically requiring the spell to be cast after the strike.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think the wording is ambiguous, but the intent is pretty clearly 2. What if the spell was cast three turns ago but has an ongoing effect that calls for saves? Most people would agree that the intent is that “a spell you cast before the end of your next turn” doesn’t include spells you’ve already cast. But “cast” looks the same in the present and in the past tense, so sure, it’s a bit ambiguous.
Just to clarify, with this interpretation, does that mean you could hit someone and then cast Thunderous Smite and wait several rounds before hitting them with the Smite and them still getting disadvantage... because the spell was CAST before the end of the next turn?
Just pointing out that neither interpretations avoid wonky results, but I still think consistency is key, so with that in mind are your answers the same?
Edit: Though I do think a reword that would match my interpretation of RAI would be... ‘When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next spell saving throw from you, until the end of your next turn.’
I say this because the preface reads... ‘At 10th level, you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells.’ Thus the effect should be temporarily located within the creature itself (their resistance) and the attack has undercut this for up to 11 seconds.
I think the wording is ambiguous, but the intent is pretty clearly 2. What if the spell was cast three turns ago but has an ongoing effect that calls for saves? Most people would agree that the intent is that “a spell you cast before the end of your next turn” doesn’t include spells you’ve already cast. But “cast” looks the same in the present and in the past tense, so sure, it’s a bit ambiguous.
Just to clarify, with this interpretation, does that mean you could hit someone and then cast Thunderous Smite and wait several rounds before hitting them with the Smite and them still getting disadvantage... because the spell was CAST before the end of the next turn?
Just pointing out that neither interpretations avoid wonky results, but I still think consistency is key, so with that in mind are your answers the same?
Edit: Though I do think a reword that would match my interpretation of RAI would be... ‘When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next spell saving throw from you, until the end of your next turn.’
What seems to me to be the clear intent of the feature is that both the casting of the relevant spell and the saving throw occur after the feature takes effect and before the end of your next turn. The current wording allows for interpretations that violate that in both directions, but it's a tough intent to convey elegantly. Bracketing it like so: "(the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast)(before the end of your next turn)" captures what I feel to be the intent of the feature, without producing any wonky results.
If "cast" is in the present tense, it disallows spells that have already been cast when the feature takes effect, preventing the effect from traveling back in time. This is the only "cast" that makes sense to me, because if it's in the past, then the feature doesn't work on spells that you cast AFTER the feature takes effect.
Bracketing as I have ensures that "before the end of your next turn" applies to the saving throw, not just to the casting of the spell. The example you've come up with relies on bracketing as follows: "(the next saving throw it makes)(against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn)." That's definitely an interpretation supported by the text. But I don't believe it's the intent, because your example is, as you say, wonky.
Eh, I'd argue that your interpretation is wonky too. The actual effect of Thunderous Smite doesn't go off until the target is hit by a weapon. That weapon features Eldritch Smite which weakens an enemy against the user's spell effects. Although Thunderous Smite was cast, it hasn't done a thing until after the hit. It's essentially an automatic readied action written as a bonus action.
A thing that weakens a target against spell effects not working on the very spell effect that it triggers does not seem to be the intent of the feature IMO.
Eh, I'd argue that your interpretation is wonky too. The actual effect of Thunderous Smite doesn't go off until the target is hit by a weapon. That weapon features Eldritch Smite which weakens an enemy against the user's spell effects. Although Thunderous Smite was cast, it hasn't done a thing until after the hit. It's essentially an automatic readied action written as a bonus action.
A thing that weakens a target against spell effects not working on the very spell effect that it triggers does not seem to be the intent of the feature IMO.
I don’t find it at all wonky that a feature doesn’t work on a spell that was cast before the feature came into effect. I get what you’re saying about the delayed spell effect, and there are certainly ways to rationalize what fiction is being represented by the mechanics that support the view, but the mechanical language simply doesn’t allow the feature to affect both spells that have already been cast and spells that you cast after the triggering weapon attack. And while I’m never a proponent of blindly sticking to RAW without any consideration, in this instance, “you make the attack and then you cast the spell” feels absolutely fundamental to the flavor of the effect.
What seems to me to be the clear intent of the feature is that both the casting of the relevant spell and the saving throw occur after the feature takes effect and before the end of your next turn. The current wording allows for interpretations that violate that in both directions, but it's a tough intent to convey elegantly. Bracketing it like so: "(the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast)(before the end of your next turn)" captures what I feel to be the intent of the feature, without producing any wonky results.
If "cast" is in the present tense, it disallows spells that have already been cast when the feature takes effect, preventing the effect from traveling back in time. This is the only "cast" that makes sense to me, because if it's in the past, then the feature doesn't work on spells that you cast AFTER the feature takes effect.
Bracketing as I have ensures that "before the end of your next turn" applies to the saving throw, not just to the casting of the spell. The example you've come up with relies on bracketing as follows: "(the next saving throw it makes)(against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn)." That's definitely an interpretation supported by the text. But I don't believe it's the intent, because your example is, as you say, wonky.
I don't think the example is wonky. What about this? What if I cast Dragon's Breath two turns ago and hit my target this turn. Would you not say that next turn if I breathe fire onto them they should have disadvantage? It is a spell I cast and the saving throw is made after I hit them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yeah the Dragon’s Breath (or Sunbeam etc.) is also a weird interaction with this ability because either...
1. You can cast the ability on someone else and then they use it and the target has disadvantage (RAW?)
or
2. Someone else can cast it on your and you then action surge and use the breath on an enemy after hitting them... and they have disadvantage (RAI?) or they don’t (RAW).
I think this ability is difficult to adjudicate consistently as some abilities makes sense whilst others don’t with the same ruling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
"At 10th level, you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells. 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."
RAW ... I think this works with spells you have already cast as well as those that you cast after the effect takes place.
"a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
All this says is that the saving throw is affected as long as the spell is cast before the start of your next turn. It does not say "a spell cast before the end of your next turn AND after the attack which activates the ability". It doesn't say "a spell you will cast" or "a spell you have cast" ... just a spell you cast which can mean both "have cast" or "will cast". Anyway, RAW, I think that is what the words say. In terms of RAI or how an individual DM wants to run it, that is up to them.
In the example from the OP, I think the saving throw against thunderous smite would be at disadvantage.
What seems to me to be the clear intent of the feature is that both the casting of the relevant spell and the saving throw occur after the feature takes effect and before the end of your next turn. The current wording allows for interpretations that violate that in both directions, but it's a tough intent to convey elegantly. Bracketing it like so: "(the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast)(before the end of your next turn)" captures what I feel to be the intent of the feature, without producing any wonky results.
If "cast" is in the present tense, it disallows spells that have already been cast when the feature takes effect, preventing the effect from traveling back in time. This is the only "cast" that makes sense to me, because if it's in the past, then the feature doesn't work on spells that you cast AFTER the feature takes effect.
Bracketing as I have ensures that "before the end of your next turn" applies to the saving throw, not just to the casting of the spell. The example you've come up with relies on bracketing as follows: "(the next saving throw it makes)(against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn)." That's definitely an interpretation supported by the text. But I don't believe it's the intent, because your example is, as you say, wonky.
I don't think the example is wonky. What about this? What if I cast Dragon's Breath two turns ago and hit my target this turn. Would you not say that next turn if I breathe fire onto them they should have disadvantage? It is a spell I cast and the saving throw is made after I hit them.
I would absolutely not say that next turn if you breathe fire onto them they should have disadvantage.
Since this is Rules and Mechanics, after all, I'll reiterate that a spell you cast (past tense) two turns ago is not a spell you cast (present tense). Since cast can't be both past and present simultaneously, strict adherence to the mechanical language forces you to choose whether you think the rule is applicable to spells you cast after the weapon attack but not before OR spells you cast before the weapon attack but not after. RAW, you can't have it both ways. Again, I don't really think "well, it's RAW" is something that should be absolute when it comes to actual play, but figuring out what RAW actually is is the point of this board XD
As to why I think it's wonky, it does not make sense to me that a feature that's intended to improve magic you do after the feature is triggered should improve magic you did before the feature is triggered. You already cast the spell, you can't change it anymore, how can the feature possibly make it better? Again, like I said, there are definitely rationalizations of the mechanics that are different from mine that can make it make sense. I just don't like them.
I will elaborate a bit on that, though. I think the preceding sentences pretty firmly establish that I think the fiction of Eldritch Strike is that it primarily affects the spell, not the target. It makes your spell stronger against the target of the weapon attack rather than making the target of the weapon attack weaker against your spell. Here's why: tons of spells that call for saving throws are dex saves. How on earth is Eldritch Strike supposed to make its target slower/clumsier against my fireball but not against, idunno, falling rocks or whatever? The same is true of strength saves to resist being pushed around, as in Thunderous Smite. If I'm weakening my enemy rather than strengthening my spell, why isn't that weakness universal? It's easier to rationalize with mental saves, but I just cannot buy into it for physical saves. And if I'm strengthening my spell rather than weakening my enemy, it doesn't make sense that I should be able to apply it spells that have already been cast. I can't retroactively upcast spells, why should I be able to retroactively boost my spells with this class feature?
Again, I 100% understand that other people have different priorities when it comes to what does and doesn't make sense to them. I'm not trying to argue for my position, only to explain it.
RAW ... I think this works with spells you have already cast as well as those that you cast after the effect takes place.
"a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
All this says is that the saving throw is affected as long as the spell is cast before the start of your next turn. It does not say "a spell cast before the end of your next turn AND after the attack which activates the ability". It doesn't say "a spell you will cast" or "a spell you have cast" ... just a spell you cast which can mean both "have cast" or "will cast". Anyway, RAW, I think that is what the words say. In terms of RAI or how an individual DM wants to run it, that is up to them.
That's not how English grammar works. "AND after the attack which activates the ability" is redundant if the verb is in the present tense. If they wanted to include any spell cast before the end of your next turn, including spells that had already been cast when the ability was triggered, they'd have to have said "a spell you will have cast."
I will elaborate a bit on that, though. I think the preceding sentences pretty firmly establish that I think the fiction of Eldritch Strike is that it primarily affects the spell, not the target.
The language of Eldritch Strike says that "you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells" so no, I don't think it's supposed to modify your magic, it's supposed to modify your target's resistance to your magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I will elaborate a bit on that, though. I think the preceding sentences pretty firmly establish that I think the fiction of Eldritch Strike is that it primarily affects the spell, not the target.
The language of Eldritch Strike says that "you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells" so no, I don't think it's supposed to modify your magic, it's supposed to modify your target's resistance to your magic.
Again, just a difference in how we treat the fiction of the mechanic. Your take on it is fine, it's just not mine XD
I will elaborate a bit on that, though. I think the preceding sentences pretty firmly establish that I think the fiction of Eldritch Strike is that it primarily affects the spell, not the target. It makes your spell stronger against the target of the weapon attack rather than making the target of the weapon attack weaker against your spell. Here's why: tons of spells that call for saving throws are dex saves. How on earth is Eldritch Strike supposed to make its target slower/clumsier against my fireball but not against, idunno, falling rocks or whatever? The same is true of strength saves to resist being pushed around, as in Thunderous Smite. If I'm weakening my enemy rather than strengthening my spell, why isn't that weakness universal? It's easier to rationalize with mental saves, but I just cannot buy into it for physical saves. And if I'm strengthening my spell rather than weakening my enemy, it doesn't make sense that I should be able to apply it spells that have already been cast. I can't retroactively upcast spells, why should I be able to retroactively boost my spells with this class feature?
You are an Eldritch Knight, a warrior that combines martial prowess with arcane power. Your spellcasting and your weapon play are intrinsically connected. So when you hit them with your weapon, you are marking them with your magic in a way that allows your magic, and only your magic, to sympathetically home in on them. I would absolutely allow Thunderous Smite and Dragon's Breath and other magical effects that were put in place before the strike to impose a save with disadvantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I will elaborate a bit on that, though. I think the preceding sentences pretty firmly establish that I think the fiction of Eldritch Strike is that it primarily affects the spell, not the target.
The language of Eldritch Strike says that "you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells" so no, I don't think it's supposed to modify your magic, it's supposed to modify your target's resistance to your magic.
Again, just a difference in how we treat the fiction of the mechanic. Your take on it is fine, it's just not mine XD
Ok, but you must admit that the language itself pretty clearly says outright that it's the target that's affected, not the magic. If you choose to rule it another, that's up to you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Necro posting, but here I go, and please hear me out:
You can find plenty instances which specifically refer to "the next spell you cast." So if Eldrich Strike was ONLY meant to apply disadvantage on the next saving throw an enemy makes on a spell cast ONLY between the time of the HIT and the saving throw, it would read that way. But it doesn't. It says "A spell cast BEFORE THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN. J. Crawford and I both agree the A SPELL BEFORE part very specifically leaves the future open-ended on purpose, specifically so that your magical self beating a fire giant over the head with your warhammer is gonna apply a fresh does of weakness to your spells EVERY time you hit...even your spell which they are already under the effects of.
Think of the flavor. Every time you cut an enemy you essentially REweaken their magic resistance. Why would the intent NOT be to make that Hold Person almost unsavable WHILE I'M BASHING YOU IN THE HEAD??? I'm just saying.
I think there's just a lot of FEAR of OPness because of Hold Person, but we're talking 1, max 3, mere HUMANOIDS you can keep subdued...while you're killing them anyway. With magical blows. And that applies to a 19th level EK.
It is totally NOT game-breaking to allow each eldritch strike to renew the save disadvantage for WHICHEVER of your spells saves is first imposed before the end of your turn. Like, I've thought of every way to abuse this, and the MOST OP scenario I can think of involves my multiclassed 10th level Eldritch Knight Fighter + 10th level Wild Magic Sorceror. Yeah, he can theoretically longbow TWO remorhazes, upcast Hold Monster with a 6 slot, then action surge to hit them both again, essentially keeping both HUGE monsters in a constant cycle of disadvantaged paralysis...AT LEVEL 20!!! And even then, you're using your concentration AND both of your attacks to keep JUST these two monsters subdued. All things considered, if THAT kind of maneuvering is all it takes to derail your campaign, the problem is YOUR CAMPAIGN, not the ability itself.
But yeah, to recap, wording AND intent AND flavor considered, I see no reason why me magically hacking away at your resistance to my spells should NOT make you unable to break out of the effect I've already placed upon you, in the absence of me forcing you to take a different save.
Let's not forget that the strongest possible EK only has access to a single Lvl.4 spell slot. I dare say the fact that, by level 10, having the ability to make the FEW saves I can impose upon you super hard to beat, assuming I can hit you, is totally what makes the EK such an unspokenly badass subclass.
EMBRACE the Eldritch Strike. It's MEANT to be that awesome. You have to get to level 10 to even get to use it, afterall.
Eldritch Strike
"At 10th level, you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells. 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."
If an Eldritch Knight multi-class uses Thunderous Smite as a bonus action and then Booming Blade as an action, which of the following happens?
Input with reasoning would be appreciated, especially if I missed something.
Number 1. You have to hit in order for Thunderous Smite to force a save so I say the hit comes first, inflicting the disadvantage, then the save happens at a disadvantage. Just remember that the secondary effect for Booming Blade has to trigger off of willing movement, so the push from Thunderous Smite won't cause it to go off.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I agree but I am also curious about the wording ‘against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn.’ Which, is ambiguous in regards to a spell cast before this effect even started.
Also, yeah I know about the willing movement, the point is that it adds damage whilst also disengaging.
Oh, hmm ... you're right that is a little tricky, it changes depending on whether you look at (a spell you cast) (before the end of your next turn) or (a spell) (you cast before the end of your next turn). The first way you'd say yes, this is a spell I cast and it is before the end of my next turn. The second way you'd say yes it is a spell I cast, but I didn't cast it before the end of my next turn. In general I try to be generous with my players, so I would probably go for the first parsing and let them do it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think the wording is ambiguous, but the intent is pretty clearly 2. What if the spell was cast three turns ago but has an ongoing effect that calls for saves? Most people would agree that the intent is that “a spell you cast before the end of your next turn” doesn’t include spells you’ve already cast. But “cast” looks the same in the present and in the past tense, so sure, it’s a bit ambiguous.
True, but it's still a spell I cast and shouldn't saves caused by my spells benefit from my Eldritch Strike? I don't see what is gained from specifically requiring the spell to be cast after the strike.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Just to clarify, with this interpretation, does that mean you could hit someone and then cast Thunderous Smite and wait several rounds before hitting them with the Smite and them still getting disadvantage... because the spell was CAST before the end of the next turn?
Just pointing out that neither interpretations avoid wonky results, but I still think consistency is key, so with that in mind are your answers the same?
Edit: Though I do think a reword that would match my interpretation of RAI would be... ‘When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, that creature has disadvantage on the next spell saving throw from you, until the end of your next turn.’
I say this because the preface reads... ‘At 10th level, you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells.’ Thus the effect should be temporarily located within the creature itself (their resistance) and the attack has undercut this for up to 11 seconds.
What seems to me to be the clear intent of the feature is that both the casting of the relevant spell and the saving throw occur after the feature takes effect and before the end of your next turn. The current wording allows for interpretations that violate that in both directions, but it's a tough intent to convey elegantly. Bracketing it like so: "(the next saving throw it makes against a spell you cast)(before the end of your next turn)" captures what I feel to be the intent of the feature, without producing any wonky results.
If "cast" is in the present tense, it disallows spells that have already been cast when the feature takes effect, preventing the effect from traveling back in time. This is the only "cast" that makes sense to me, because if it's in the past, then the feature doesn't work on spells that you cast AFTER the feature takes effect.
Bracketing as I have ensures that "before the end of your next turn" applies to the saving throw, not just to the casting of the spell. The example you've come up with relies on bracketing as follows: "(the next saving throw it makes)(against a spell you cast before the end of your next turn)." That's definitely an interpretation supported by the text. But I don't believe it's the intent, because your example is, as you say, wonky.
Eh, I'd argue that your interpretation is wonky too. The actual effect of Thunderous Smite doesn't go off until the target is hit by a weapon. That weapon features Eldritch Smite which weakens an enemy against the user's spell effects. Although Thunderous Smite was cast, it hasn't done a thing until after the hit. It's essentially an automatic readied action written as a bonus action.
A thing that weakens a target against spell effects not working on the very spell effect that it triggers does not seem to be the intent of the feature IMO.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don’t find it at all wonky that a feature doesn’t work on a spell that was cast before the feature came into effect. I get what you’re saying about the delayed spell effect, and there are certainly ways to rationalize what fiction is being represented by the mechanics that support the view, but the mechanical language simply doesn’t allow the feature to affect both spells that have already been cast and spells that you cast after the triggering weapon attack. And while I’m never a proponent of blindly sticking to RAW without any consideration, in this instance, “you make the attack and then you cast the spell” feels absolutely fundamental to the flavor of the effect.
I don't think the example is wonky. What about this? What if I cast Dragon's Breath two turns ago and hit my target this turn. Would you not say that next turn if I breathe fire onto them they should have disadvantage? It is a spell I cast and the saving throw is made after I hit them.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yeah the Dragon’s Breath (or Sunbeam etc.) is also a weird interaction with this ability because either...
1. You can cast the ability on someone else and then they use it and the target has disadvantage (RAW?)
or
2. Someone else can cast it on your and you then action surge and use the breath on an enemy after hitting them... and they have disadvantage (RAI?) or they don’t (RAW).
I think this ability is difficult to adjudicate consistently as some abilities makes sense whilst others don’t with the same ruling.
"At 10th level, you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells. 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."
RAW ... I think this works with spells you have already cast as well as those that you cast after the effect takes place.
"a spell you cast before the end of your next turn."
All this says is that the saving throw is affected as long as the spell is cast before the start of your next turn. It does not say "a spell cast before the end of your next turn AND after the attack which activates the ability". It doesn't say "a spell you will cast" or "a spell you have cast" ... just a spell you cast which can mean both "have cast" or "will cast". Anyway, RAW, I think that is what the words say. In terms of RAI or how an individual DM wants to run it, that is up to them.
In the example from the OP, I think the saving throw against thunderous smite would be at disadvantage.
I would absolutely not say that next turn if you breathe fire onto them they should have disadvantage.
Since this is Rules and Mechanics, after all, I'll reiterate that a spell you cast (past tense) two turns ago is not a spell you cast (present tense). Since cast can't be both past and present simultaneously, strict adherence to the mechanical language forces you to choose whether you think the rule is applicable to spells you cast after the weapon attack but not before OR spells you cast before the weapon attack but not after. RAW, you can't have it both ways. Again, I don't really think "well, it's RAW" is something that should be absolute when it comes to actual play, but figuring out what RAW actually is is the point of this board XD
As to why I think it's wonky, it does not make sense to me that a feature that's intended to improve magic you do after the feature is triggered should improve magic you did before the feature is triggered. You already cast the spell, you can't change it anymore, how can the feature possibly make it better? Again, like I said, there are definitely rationalizations of the mechanics that are different from mine that can make it make sense. I just don't like them.
I will elaborate a bit on that, though. I think the preceding sentences pretty firmly establish that I think the fiction of Eldritch Strike is that it primarily affects the spell, not the target. It makes your spell stronger against the target of the weapon attack rather than making the target of the weapon attack weaker against your spell. Here's why: tons of spells that call for saving throws are dex saves. How on earth is Eldritch Strike supposed to make its target slower/clumsier against my fireball but not against, idunno, falling rocks or whatever? The same is true of strength saves to resist being pushed around, as in Thunderous Smite. If I'm weakening my enemy rather than strengthening my spell, why isn't that weakness universal? It's easier to rationalize with mental saves, but I just cannot buy into it for physical saves. And if I'm strengthening my spell rather than weakening my enemy, it doesn't make sense that I should be able to apply it spells that have already been cast. I can't retroactively upcast spells, why should I be able to retroactively boost my spells with this class feature?
Again, I 100% understand that other people have different priorities when it comes to what does and doesn't make sense to them. I'm not trying to argue for my position, only to explain it.
That's not how English grammar works. "AND after the attack which activates the ability" is redundant if the verb is in the present tense. If they wanted to include any spell cast before the end of your next turn, including spells that had already been cast when the ability was triggered, they'd have to have said "a spell you will have cast."
The language of Eldritch Strike says that "you learn how to make your weapon strikes undercut a creature’s resistance to your spells" so no, I don't think it's supposed to modify your magic, it's supposed to modify your target's resistance to your magic.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Again, just a difference in how we treat the fiction of the mechanic. Your take on it is fine, it's just not mine XD
You are an Eldritch Knight, a warrior that combines martial prowess with arcane power. Your spellcasting and your weapon play are intrinsically connected. So when you hit them with your weapon, you are marking them with your magic in a way that allows your magic, and only your magic, to sympathetically home in on them. I would absolutely allow Thunderous Smite and Dragon's Breath and other magical effects that were put in place before the strike to impose a save with disadvantage.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Ok, but you must admit that the language itself pretty clearly says outright that it's the target that's affected, not the magic. If you choose to rule it another, that's up to you.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Necro posting, but here I go, and please hear me out:
You can find plenty instances which specifically refer to "the next spell you cast." So if Eldrich Strike was ONLY meant to apply disadvantage on the next saving throw an enemy makes on a spell cast ONLY between the time of the HIT and the saving throw, it would read that way. But it doesn't. It says "A spell cast BEFORE THE END OF YOUR NEXT TURN. J. Crawford and I both agree the A SPELL BEFORE part very specifically leaves the future open-ended on purpose, specifically so that your magical self beating a fire giant over the head with your warhammer is gonna apply a fresh does of weakness to your spells EVERY time you hit...even your spell which they are already under the effects of.
Think of the flavor. Every time you cut an enemy you essentially REweaken their magic resistance. Why would the intent NOT be to make that Hold Person almost unsavable WHILE I'M BASHING YOU IN THE HEAD??? I'm just saying.
I think there's just a lot of FEAR of OPness because of Hold Person, but we're talking 1, max 3, mere HUMANOIDS you can keep subdued...while you're killing them anyway. With magical blows. And that applies to a 19th level EK.
It is totally NOT game-breaking to allow each eldritch strike to renew the save disadvantage for WHICHEVER of your spells saves is first imposed before the end of your turn. Like, I've thought of every way to abuse this, and the MOST OP scenario I can think of involves my multiclassed 10th level Eldritch Knight Fighter + 10th level Wild Magic Sorceror. Yeah, he can theoretically longbow TWO remorhazes, upcast Hold Monster with a 6 slot, then action surge to hit them both again, essentially keeping both HUGE monsters in a constant cycle of disadvantaged paralysis...AT LEVEL 20!!! And even then, you're using your concentration AND both of your attacks to keep JUST these two monsters subdued. All things considered, if THAT kind of maneuvering is all it takes to derail your campaign, the problem is YOUR CAMPAIGN, not the ability itself.
But yeah, to recap, wording AND intent AND flavor considered, I see no reason why me magically hacking away at your resistance to my spells should NOT make you unable to break out of the effect I've already placed upon you, in the absence of me forcing you to take a different save.
Let's not forget that the strongest possible EK only has access to a single Lvl.4 spell slot. I dare say the fact that, by level 10, having the ability to make the FEW saves I can impose upon you super hard to beat, assuming I can hit you, is totally what makes the EK such an unspokenly badass subclass.
EMBRACE the Eldritch Strike. It's MEANT to be that awesome. You have to get to level 10 to even get to use it, afterall.