Bellator Arcana: The Eldritch Knight's guide

[Willie the Duck]

Again, from Jeremy via Sage Advice:

The sorcerer's Spellcasting trait lets you replace a sorcerer spell you know when you reach a new level in the class. The spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots, which means it can't be a cantrip; cantrips don't use spell slots.

Clever. I would not have thought of that. Although that particular clause is not present in the EK text, I think it clearly informs intent.

[leogobsin]

Clever. I would not have thought of that. Although that particular clause is not present in the EK text, I think it clearly informs intent.

The Eldritch Knight text specifies that when replacing a spell, the new spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots, so you couldn't pick a new cantrip, but it seems like you could maybe replace one of your cantrips with a leveled spell?

[Willie the Duck]

The Eldritch Knight text specifies that when replacing a spell, the new spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots, so you couldn't pick a new cantrip, but it seems like you could maybe replace one of your cantrips with a leveled spell?

Ack, it does have the clause! Reading failure.

[Beelzebubba]

All that said, I think most DMs would allow you to swap a cantrip on leveling up if you really felt your character was heading in a new direction, regardless of rules support. I know I would.

[DarkKnightJin]

All that said, I think most DMs would allow you to swap a cantrip on leveling up if you really felt your character was heading in a new direction, regardless of rules support. I know I would.

I would allow a character to swap out a cantrip they know for another they could've picked, if they express the desire to do so.
I might let them do some RP stuff relevant to their class/character between levels if they haven't used the cantrip they want to swap out at all.

But I'm thinking of cantrips like True Strike, Blade Ward, and maybe Spare the Dying.

[Asollan]

After doing some research I think shield master should be rated blue or gold for those who want to use a shield and take booming blade (And those who take shield master MUST take booming blade). As you can knock them prone, get an advantage attack with booming blade, then when the enemy expends half their movement to get up from prone they instantly take the booming blade damage.

[leogobsin]

After doing some research I think shield master should be rated blue or gold for those who want to use a shield and take booming blade (And those who take shield master MUST take booming blade). As you can knock them prone, get an advantage attack with booming blade, then when the enemy expends half their movement to get up from prone they instantly take the booming blade damage.

Actually it doesn't work like that, for one or possibly two reasons depending on who you ask. Firstly, to get the bonus action shove from Shield Master you need to take the Attack action; when you cast Booming Blade you aren't taking the Attack action, you're taking the Cast A Spell action, and as part of that action you make a melee attack.
And this is a debated point but generally when something like Shield Master gives you a bonus action when you take a certain action, you need to do the action before you do the bonus action, so you would have to make your attack before using your bonus action to shove the enemy prone.

[Willie the Duck]

The first one being universally acknowledged as accurate. The second is up to interpretation, but one of the designers (Mearls or Crawford? Anyone remember?) declared it to be the case, ruling out a lot of peoples' favorite builds and making people ask 'was that really an overpowered thing that needed nerfing, when coffeelocks and sorcadins and GWM exist?'

[Asollan]

Actually it doesn't work like that, for one or possibly two reasons depending on who you ask. Firstly, to get the bonus action shove from Shield Master you need to take the Attack action; when you cast Booming Blade you aren't taking the Attack action, you're taking the Cast A Spell action, and as part of that action you make a melee attack.
And this is a debated point but generally when something like Shield Master gives you a bonus action when you take a certain action, you need to do the action before you do the bonus action, so you would have to make your attack before using your bonus action to shove the enemy prone.

In order to cast booming blade YOU MUST take the attack action (How he justifies it is that you cannot cast booming blade if your attack misses, therefore it doesn't use the spell attack die it uses the weapons attack die). Also you can bonus action to shove BEFORE you attack, or at least my DM allows (In this he justifies that the an action and a bonus action are distinguished by the amount of time it takes to do something, therefore there is no reason you cannot do things in different orders, such as drinking a health potion as a bonus action first then attacking). Either way you can attack to proc booming blade then shove them prone, meaning the main reason to take shield master/booming blade still works since they will be forced to get up and get boomed. Not that it matters for me since I took find familiar so im getting advantage on my first attack either way.

[MaxWilson]

Actually it doesn't work like that, for one or possibly two reasons depending on who you ask. Firstly, to get the bonus action shove from Shield Master you need to take the Attack action; when you cast Booming Blade you aren't taking the Attack action, you're taking the Cast A Spell action, and as part of that action you make a melee attack.
And this is a debated point but generally when something like Shield Master gives you a bonus action when you take a certain action, you need to do the action before you do the bonus action, so you would have to make your attack before using your bonus action to shove the enemy prone.

I noticed something interesting recently: Tavern Brawler doesn't require your attack to be made as part of the Attack action, so it can proc off of Booming Blade.

EKs don't need this but it could be interesting for e.g. a Fighter 1/Enchanter X tank. Booming Blade with a chair leg + bonus action grapple, with Instinctive Charm and Shield and AC 21 in full plate. If one of your allies (like a conjured wolf or elk) can manage to knock the enemy prone, he's now basically out of the fight. (Disadvantage on everything, advantage to attackers.) And you didn't even have to give up an attack or spell slot to accomplish it!

Normally wizard tanks are bad at grappling because they lack Extra Attack, but Tavern Brawler bonus attack could partially obviate the issue.

[MaxWilson]

The first one being universally acknowledged as accurate. The second is up to interpretation, but one of the designers (Mearls or Crawford? Anyone remember?) declared it to be the case, ruling out a lot of peoples' favorite builds and making people ask 'was that really an overpowered thing that needed nerfing, when coffeelocks and sorcadins and GWM exist?'

Crawford declared it to be one way and then several years later changed his mind with no explanation, leading many people to be frustrated with his lack of transparency about his reasoning process.

His current opinion seems to be that you can't do it.

[leogobsin]

In order to cast booming blade YOU MUST take the attack action (How he justifies it is that you cannot cast booming blade if your attack misses, therefore it doesn't use the spell attack die it uses the weapons attack die). Also you can bonus action to shove BEFORE you attack, or at least my DM allows (In this he justifies that the an action and a bonus action are distinguished by the amount of time it takes to do something, therefore there is no reason you cannot do things in different orders, such as drinking a health potion as a bonus action first then attacking). Either way you can attack to proc booming blade then shove them prone, meaning the main reason to take shield master/booming blade still works since they will be forced to get up and get boomed. Not that it matters for me since I took find familiar so im getting advantage on my first attack either way.

Not quite. To cast Booming Blade you must make a melee attack, but making a melee attack is not the same thing as taking the Attack action. For instance, with two-weapon fighting you make a melee attack as a bonus action, and an opportunity attack is a melee attack made as a reaction: similarly the attack that's part of Booming Blade is a melee weapon attack that's made as part of the Cast A Spell action, and thus not applicable for things like Shield Master that specify the Attack action.

[Willie the Duck]

In order to cast booming blade YOU MUST take the attack action

Not unless you house-rule it to be the case. By the book, Booming Blade is a spell, cast by using the cast a spell action INSTEAD of the attack action. Thereafter, you do make a weapon attack, but only because of the statement in the spell, "Make a melee attack with a weapon."

Edit: ninja'd

In this he justifies that the an action and a bonus action are distinguished by the amount of time it takes to do something, therefore there is no reason you cannot do things in different orders, such as drinking a health potion as a bonus action first then attacking

Without special abilities allowing one to do so, you can't drink a potion as a bonus action. If there were an ability which allowed you to do so, as a special ability with the preemptive clause that your normal action was an attack action, then this would be a similar situation.

[Klorox]

I’d be very interested to hear how this officially works.

If standing up triggers booming blade, it’s a pretty freaking cool combo.

[Beelzebubba]

I’d be very interested to hear how this officially works.

If standing up triggers booming blade, it’s a pretty freaking cool combo.

Crawford's said on Sage Advice that it doesn't get triggered standing up. Or by forced movement via magic affecting you, even by compulsion.

Only by willingly moving out of the square.

[MaxWilson]

I’d be very interested to hear how this officially works.

If standing up triggers booming blade, it’s a pretty freaking cool combo.

"Officially," WotC corporate interpretation (according to JeremyCrawford in 2015) is that standing up does not count as movement. http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/09/...lade-stand-up/

Standing up costs movement but moves you nowhere. To move while prone, you crawl or use magic (PH, 191). #DnD https://twitter.com/thomas_bechtel/s...5919308963840…

Who knows if JeremyCrawford 2018 has the same opinion, or if your DM will agree with Crawford, but at least when SCAG was written there was no intent by the writers to make Booming Blade trigger on standing up.

-Max

[Asollan]

Crawford declared it to be one way and then several years later changed his mind with no explanation, leading many people to be frustrated with his lack of transparency about his reasoning process.

His current opinion seems to be that you can't do it.

Actually from what I saw he believes you can I'd link the tweet but I don't have ten posts yet

[MaxWilson]

Actually from what I saw he believes you can I'd link the tweet but I don't have ten posts yet

Here is Crawford's opinion from 2014:

As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action.

Here is the most recent opinion I've seen from Crawford on the subject:

Clarification about bonus actions: if a feature says you can do X as a bonus action if you do Y, you must do Y before you can do X. For Shield Master, that means the bonus action must come after the Attack action. You decide when it happens afterward that turn.

"Why did you nerf Shield Master?" some have asked. Here's the summary:

- Nothing has changed in Shield Master.

- I've clarified that bonus action abilities (not just Shield Master) mean it when they say you must do X to do Y. Ignore the old ruling that stated otherwise.

"Clarified," heh. Not hardly.

[MeeposFire]

Frankly as much as I prefer being more lenient (and thus allow the shield push to happen after declaration of the the attack action but perhaps before the actual attack rolls happen) the current ruling does fit the wording of the ability better. The previous ruling would force you to contort the whole thing to make it work with the wording such as the before mentioned deciding that declaring the use of the attack action is enough and the actual resolution of the action.

[MaxWilson]

Frankly as much as I prefer being more lenient (and thus allow the shield push to happen after declaration of the the attack action but perhaps before the actual attack rolls happen) the current ruling does fit the wording of the ability better. The previous ruling would force you to contort the whole thing to make it work with the wording such as the before mentioned deciding that declaring the use of the attack action is enough and the actual resolution of the action.

The sequence in bold would be very naturally described as "when[ever] you take the Attack action", with no particular implications about sequencing.

If you want to restrict it to strictly after the Attack action completes, you could write "after you take the Attack action."

If you interpret "when[ever] you take the Attack action" to mean "strictly after you take the Attack action," you're left with no good way to describe the original, non-sequenced idea in bold. "Before or after you take the Attack action" is really clunky and makes it sound like you could possibly do it twice. "Before or after the Attack after but not both" is just dreadful.

I cannot therefore agree that the current ruling fits the wording better. At any rate, there's a better wording for the ruling Crawford currently prefers. If that's the rule for the PHB going forward, they should update the PHB text to be more clear: "after you take the Attack action." Until then I'm going to keep ignoring Crawford's tweets.

[Asollan]

The sequence in bold would be very naturally described as "when[ever] you take the Attack action", with no particular implications about sequencing.

If you want to restrict it to strictly after the Attack action completes, you could write "after you take the Attack action."

If you interpret "when[ever] you take the Attack action" to mean "strictly after you take the Attack action," you're left with no good way to describe the original, non-sequenced idea in bold. "Before or after you take the Attack action" is really clunky and makes it sound like you could possibly do it twice. "Before or after the Attack after but not both" is just dreadful.

I cannot therefore agree that the current ruling fits the wording better. At any rate, there's a better wording for the ruling Crawford currently prefers. If that's the rule for the PHB going forward, they should update the PHB text to be more clear: "after you take the Attack action." Until then I'm going to keep ignoring Crawford's tweets.

It will never become "After you take the attack action" Because you can choose to either do it before or after. "When you take the attack action" is good enough, because you can take the attack action anytime during your turn. You can be anal about it all you want but players who know what they're talking about wont want to play with you lol. Think about it from a realistic perspective, what is actually stopping you from bashing someones face with your shield before you attack them with your sword? Nothing.

[Slybluedemon]

Fighters already have Con proficiency, so this is of more limited use. Not unhelpful. But not a no-brainer.


Look again at the rules for arcane foci...
Unless you've invested levels in wizard, the ruby of the war mage is of no use to an EK.


They still have to drop their weapon because of point (2) above.
It would be great not have to use their bonus action every time I agree, but that's just wishful thinking unfortunately.


It adds some moderate benefit, but for the reasons stated these benefits are probably not worth the cost of an ASI.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/...493538821?s=19


EK can use Ruby of the War Mage, in fact it was created with them in mind

[Asollan]

+1 Shield or Sentinel shield that gives advantage on perception checks and initiative?

[Slybluedemon]

+1 Shield or Sentinel shield that gives advantage on perception checks and initiative?

When I played my EK I used an Animated Shield. Left me a free hand for my materials

[Specter]

+1 Shield or Sentinel shield that gives advantage on perception checks and initiative?

Depends on whether you want to play to your strenghts or be more diverse. You should have a high AC, and that's important on every fight. But maybe you want to improve your perception and be surprised less often. Your party should also orient this decision.

[XZlayeD]

Hiya!

I'm about to start a campaign as an Eberron Warforged envoy playing a figher class who will at level 3 turn into an eldrich knight. The idea of the character is to be a walking smiths forge with knowlegde of a past world and arcane wisdom, which has the purpose of creating weapons in the spirit of his deceased creator.

The idea is to have the character dual wielding hammers and later swords which he crafts himself. Our DM has changed the rules, so using an offhand weapon no longer require you to use your bonus action, but instead always attacks with the first attack you do.

I understand that I should be getting War caster at some point to be able to cast certain spells (especially as reactions such as absorb elements and shield), So my question is which other feats or spells I should be looking into getting as I level.

I can see that getting the dual wielding feat could be quite a boon for me as well.


Also I have a question regarding which spells to prioritize, when Dual wielding, or perhaps even which spells to go for, if I'm only able to cast verbal spells, or perhaps some somatic spells in my round by discarding a weapon, casting a spell and then use the bonus action get the weapon back in my hand. Getting an entire feat just to be able to use absorb elements and shield (and perhaps booming blade) on a reaction seems like quite a cost.

[xanderh]

Hiya!

I'm about to start a campaign as an Eberron Warforged envoy playing a figher class who will at level 3 turn into an eldrich knight. The idea of the character is to be a walking smiths forge with knowlegde of a past world and arcane wisdom, which has the purpose of creating weapons in the spirit of his deceased creator.

The idea is to have the character dual wielding hammers and later swords which he crafts himself. Our DM has changed the rules, so using an offhand weapon no longer require you to use your bonus action, but instead always attacks with the first attack you do.

I understand that I should be getting War caster at some point to be able to cast certain spells (especially as reactions such as absorb elements and shield), So my question is which other feats or spells I should be looking into getting as I level.

I can see that getting the dual wielding feat could be quite a boon for me as well.


Also I have a question regarding which spells to prioritize, when Dual wielding, or perhaps even which spells to go for, if I'm only able to cast verbal spells, or perhaps some somatic spells in my round by discarding a weapon, casting a spell and then use the bonus action get the weapon back in my hand. Getting an entire feat just to be able to use absorb elements and shield (and perhaps booming blade) on a reaction seems like quite a cost.

Those are not the only benefits to taking war caster. You also get advantage on concentration saves, which is fairly important for you if you're going to use spells with concentration. Haste especially is really good, though you get access to it pretty late.

[XZlayeD]

Those are not the only benefits to taking war caster. You also get advantage on concentration saves, which is fairly important for you if you're going to use spells with concentration. Haste especially is really good, though you get access to it pretty late.

I am at an impasse when it would be worth getting it then, because getting the dual wielding feat at 4 would make me able to go from 2 1d6 weapons to 2 1d8 weapons, give me 1 more AC. at 6 it would be quite powerful to have another 2 strength (i got a 17 roll for my strength, and with the added subclass it got me to 18) to total it out at 20 early on. that leaves it at level 8. would that be an appropriate time to get it then?

[xanderh]

I am at an impasse when it would be worth getting it then, because getting the dual wielding feat at 4 would make me able to go from 2 1d6 weapons to 2 1d8 weapons, give me 1 more AC. at 6 it would be quite powerful to have another 2 strength (i got a 17 roll for my strength, and with the added subclass it got me to 18) to total it out at 20 early on. that leaves it at level 8. would that be an appropriate time to get it then?

At 6 or 8 would both be strong choices. You're already an ASI ahead of the expected math of the game, so grabbing it at 6 would be no problem at all, you probably wouldn't notice that your strength wasn't at 20 yet. 8 would also be just fine. You get access to some nice defensive spells that require concentration at 7th level, so keep that in mind.

Either choice works, really. It just depends on whether you want to keep your concentration (and the other benefits. booming blade on opportunity attacks is actually kind of amazing) at 6 or 8. There aren't that many great 1st level concentration spells, so it would mostly be for the 2nd and 3rd level spells.
If you're not that interested in the spells, you could even wait until level 12 or 14 with War Caster, if you ever get that far. You get access to Haste at level 14, and you really don't want to lose concentration on that spell during combat, as losing a turn can be kinda devastating.

[XZlayeD]

At 6 or 8 would both be strong choices. You're already an ASI ahead of the expected math of the game, so grabbing it at 6 would be no problem at all, you probably wouldn't notice that your strength wasn't at 20 yet. 8 would also be just fine. You get access to some nice defensive spells that require concentration at 7th level, so keep that in mind.

Either choice works, really. It just depends on whether you want to keep your concentration (and the other benefits. booming blade on opportunity attacks is actually kind of amazing) at 6 or 8. There aren't that many great 1st level concentration spells, so it would mostly be for the 2nd and 3rd level spells.
If you're not that interested in the spells, you could even wait until level 12 or 14 with War Caster, if you ever get that far. You get access to Haste at level 14, and you really don't want to lose concentration on that spell during combat, as losing a turn can be kinda devastating.

Thanks for the help!

I am definitely leaning more towards 6 or 8. The main reason I still see the point in getting war caster is for the usage of Shield and absorb elements as I think the spell slots are better used for either buffing, or defenses. I am absolutely in love with taking either blur or mirror image.

are there other aspects I should consider when dual wielding with the change I've described earlier?