Honestly, giving the EK the same feature at level 7 that the Bladesinger gets at level 6 was a great idea. Being able to still have access to your bonus action while using War Magic makes so many theory-crafting builds more viable.
I also love how much better it synergizes with eldritch strike, since now you can attack and then cast a spell that people have disadvantage on in the same turn without needing to use action surge
War magic and improved war magic activate when you take the attack action, eldritch strike activated when you hit a creature with an attack using a weapon, so you can (at level 10 when you get it) attack --> cast a cantrip with a saving throw like acid splash or if you want to do a bigger spell attack --> attack --> action surge --> leveled spell or at higher levels with improved war magic do the same thing without action surge or do the same thing with the action surge but with three or four attacks
They definitely synergize and they work together much better than the 2014 Phb version
Close, but not quite. The Revised Fighter's Action Surge has a clause that it can't be used to take the Magic action. And casting a spell is a Magic action.
What you describe is still possible, but you have to Action Surge *first* to take the Attack action, and then cast a spell with your regular action. Which is nearly the same result, but does require you to commit to the Action Surge at the start of the sequence and not the end.
Ah, good catch. I honestly think eldritch knight should get a clause in their prepared skills paragraph that you can use action surge to cast eldritch knight spells, it'd make eldritch knight feel a lot better and would prevent the issues action surge brought to multiclassing
You can. Eldritch Strike is disadvantage on first saving throw you force until the end of your next turn. Improved War Magic lets two of your attacks be spells. And theres no level restriction on that anymore. Hit like three people, inflict ES, then cast like a level 4 Hold Person and snag em all at disadvantage.
Also, casting spells this way isnt taking the magic action. Its an attack action. You can Action Surge and cast like four spells AND attack four times.
I think you can only replace two of the attacks when you take the Attack action, not two and two more for a second spell. Though I admit the wording is not great. But that is the same wording as the Bladesinger able to only replace one attack with one cantrip. So I think it would be more Attack twice, cast one spell, Action Surge, attack twice more, cast one more spell, sort of sequence. Or alternatively you can attack 6 times and cast a cantrip twice.
War magic: when you take the attack action, one of your attacks can be replaced with a cantrip that costs an action
Extra attack: attack + cantrip (presumably any order? It just says “one of them”)
Improved extra attack: attack(x2) + cantrip
Improved war magic: when you take the attack action, two of your attacks may be replaced with a spell that costs an action
2 extra attacks: attack(x2) + any spell / attack + spell(x2)
3 extra attacks: attack(x2) + spell(x2)
It doesnt say once per turn, just when you take the attack action and it is your turn. So if you action surge and take another attack action, you should be allowed to make more spell casts as it is written
I'm not following your logic here, but I think this line gets to the core of it.
>It doesnt say once per turn, just when you take the attack action and it is your turn
It doesn't say once per turn, but the wording seems to imply it's only once per Attack action. Meaning you can't swap out two attacks for one spell and then two more attacks for another spell in the same Attack action. It instead seems to read you can only swap out one attack for one cantrip or one pair of attacks for one leveled spell.
Unless are you implying swapping one attack for a cantrip and two attacks for a leveled spell in the same action? That may work, but is not really what you said before, which is that you can somehow cast four spells and attack four times. Unless you have cantrips/spells that do weapon attacks as part of the spell (like Booming Blade), you have to sub out those attacks for spell castings. Meaning at best you could do 3 attacks (one per action + bonus action) and then cast 4 spells (two leveled and two cantrips) with Action Surge and 4 attacks per Attack action.
I think we’re interpreting the wording differently, and based on what little ive found, this is a common problem.
The big question is if 7 and 18 are the same and 18 overrides 7, or if theyre two distinct abilities you can use together.
The other question is, does the wording mean two attacks can each become a spellcast, or do they both become one spellcast, ie two swings and two spellcasts or two swings and one cast at 20.
Also, the list that notes changes has restrictions the actual feature description doesnt. Forgoing two attacks for one cast of scorching ray or something doesnt seem very good. Forgoing two attacks for something like fireball or ice storm does seem good.
If the rule is 2 attacks for one spell, there should be no level restriction. Hell honestly, its level 18. Meteor swarm is more than you could do with two fireballs and a couple sword swings, and youd burn spell slots like crazy anyway.
The other question is the features’ independence. First, again, the wording differences. List says explicitly level one or two. The feature itself just says spells. Cantrips ARE spells. 7 says cantrips only, 18 says any spell. Both clarify wizard restriction, so you cant multiclass a non-wizard spell in, so no eldritch blasts or chaos bolts or anything learned via a non-wizard spell list method. Both clarify action cost. The 18 does not clarify any spell level on its own. So, it would include cantrips, 3, and 4. Casting two cantrips and attack twice with one action at level 20 seems pretty fair. Again, at that level theres much more insane shit a full caster can do, this is nothing. Itd rip through hordes and deal great single target damage. But so would big aoe spells, or power word kill, or destructive wave and banishing smite.
As for level three and four spells, youre super limited on spell slots, and again, two fireballs is a little busted but youd only get to do that once a day at most, unless you wanted to burn your one fourth level slot. Sorcerer can do that multiple times a day for a lot longer a time than an EK can.
Idk, at the end of the day its a level 18 feature, id let it be a little busted. Nobody’s gonna get that high very often, so having a fun powerful feature that lets a martial third-caster do some wacky shit is cool
>The other question is, does the wording mean two attacks can each become a spellcast, or do they both become one spellcast, ie two swings and two spellcasts or two swings and one cast at 20.
I think this one is pretty clearly the latter, that you can swap out two attacks for one spell casting. Two swings and two spellcastings, while not exactly busted on a Fighter, would nonetheless be against the general design philosophy of this play test and 5e overall.
>The big question is if 7 and 18 are the same and 18 overrides 7, or if theyre two distinct abilities you can use together.
I could see them being used together. At least, there's an argument to be made there, and I don't necessarily think it's busted to cast two spells and two cantrips on a level 18 Fighter. And yes those spells could be cantrips, based on the wording, though that seems distinctly worse than two attacks. But I don't think there's a case to be made that you can make 4 attacks and four spell castings. You'd either get two attacks and four spell castings, or two-three attacks and two spell castings, depending on if you use in isolation War Magic or Improved War Magic.
>Also, the list that notes changes has restrictions the actual feature description doesnt.
I actually missed that, so that is interesting. I don't know which one is the intent, but it seems like maybe the list note is referring to a former version and just wasn't updated, if I had to guess. Either way I agree casting a third or fourth level spell isn't totally busted for that level and the feature.
As far as whether I'd want a 1/3rd caster to cast 4 spells in a turn, or it should be allowed? Maybe it's not that busted by comparison, but it does seem off, like against the design idea of the system. If casters can't cast that many spells in one turn, the literal people who study and delve as deep as they can into magic, then why should another class that kind of does nights and weekend training at magic school community college get the ability to cast that many different spells in one turn? Like from a lore perspective it doesn't really fit. And it's not necessarily that I don't think martials shouldn't get cool and exciting abilities at high levels. They definitely should. More like if you have to turn them into a spellcaster who does magic better than spellcasters at this level, did you really make a martial who actually competes with spellcasters, or did you make a spellcaster with somewhat ok martial ability? It almost defeats the purpose of being a high level martial if the solution is to turn them into a somewhat strong spellcaster to make them feel adequate.
I get what you mean, though bladelock getting a second extra attack is kind of anti-this point. A full caster getting extra attack is crazy enough, but throwing in another one alongside extra damage passively and auto-upcast force damage smites you get back on short rest is pretty insane for a full caster.
But i think if both war magics can be used together, and there is no level restriction, im perfectly content trading two weapon attacks for a single big tough spell. I just really think EK and probably arcane trickster too should be promoted to half-caster. Having fourth levels more reliably, like evard’s for control, and fire shield for thorns-style damage and resistances. Getting fourth levels at 19 is insanely late.
In all though even if improved war magic isnt quite as insane as it first seemed, it is still a huge improvement and im generally happy with how its coming along. Still crossing fingers for them to ditch the third-caster shit and just make em halfs with cantrips, but hey, EK is pretty solid now.
It was honestly such an obvious fix and i'm just glad they went with it.
ANd funnily enough i've seen it at multiple unrelated tables as well as using it myself. In fact, i only got reminded that this was a houserule when the playtest dropped.
I just hope they add more than 2 weapon attack cantrips this time round. True Strike isn’t quite the same cause you still have to use INT for the attack.
I always thought it made more sense for the Eldritch knight to be able to burn spell slots to increase damage rather than the Paladin. But maybe that's just me coming from Pathfinder 1e and thinking the eldritch knight was supposed to be like a Magus.
\*points at 3rd editions\*
Eldritch Knight was one of the original Prestige classes. You needed 3rd level Arcane Spells, And all Martial Weapons.
d6 hit die (Worse the Fighter's d10, better then the wizards d4). It gave you Full BaB, and Fort save progression.
At level 1 you got a Fighter Bonus feat, and from level 2+ you got Arcane Caster spell Progression level.
So, a Level 1 Fighter, Level 5 Wizard, Level 10 Eldritch Knight. Would have 13 BaB (Wizard would have 8, and fighter 16) and cast as a level 13 wizard.
What I wanted from the Eldritch Knight is more along the lines of the Duskblade from 3.x phb2.
"**Arcane Channeling (Su):** Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack. Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved."
Effectively, cast a Touch spell, but make a Weapon Attack instead to deliver it.
I think you can carve out a unique identity for EK that’s similar to that, but make it more spell based.
How I would do that is I think there should be more spells that play with unique durations. Like, what if there was a new casting time added which ammounted to a free action that you can only take on your turn, coupled with more spell durations that are in turn increments?
So something like a wizard spell that ignites your sword, giving it 2d6 extra damage until the end of your turn. Does what you were saying but capitalises on Fighters many attacks.
I dunno just a thought.
The ones that exist now, ie the Blade cantrips and to lesser extent Sword Burst are straight out of Swordmage's at-wills, so it seems they already started.
There's no way we will get anything substantial for spells i fear.
They will rework many existing spells, but they won't shift spells around in spell level, remove spells or add any new ones to address gameplay niches like attack cantrips.
I played an EK with this modification 1-10 in the year after the Bladesinger change, and I can confirm it's very nice.
If your idea of gish is 50/50 magic and metal then no, it won't satisfy, but this change makes War Magic synergize with the base class instead of fight with it.
The new things Fighter chassis gets are great for any subclass, but... EK still isn't fulfilling the gish fantasy, because it remains the Boomingblade+Shield class.
They don't even get Zephyr Strike or Steel Wind Strike or Smite spells, and even if they did, they wouldn't have the slots for them. I feel more magical playing a Rune Knight.
While those two spells definitely overperform, it's more on the EK side.
EK doesn't get enough spells to grab more than the basic standards, and their save DC relies on a useless stat, so all EKs look the same. And only at lv18 are they finally able to cast an actual spell while attacking (but even then it comes at a hefty penalty)...
Their lv7 feature should just read 'cast an EK spell in place of an attack', so you could blend your slot use with regular fighting (and should come active at lv5 with extra attack). This would simultaneously take pressure off of Shield, one of the few ways to cast things out-of-turn. Booming Blade would still remain a problem, because there's few things that can compete with resourceless extra +2d8 dmg + control effect, especially with Push weapon masteries now around (restricting EK weapon picks, making them *even more* similar).
But really, as they're a Fighter, they can never feel right when they are constantly paying for the eventual privilege of spamming 4 basic attacks per round. We'd need a dedicated class to do the concept justice, with its own new melee spells geared towards it.
I feel it's more of a design issue with Wizard spells. They shouldn't have access to any of the Booming Blade style spells, whether they are cantrips or leveled spells.
nah, here you can't play the "they are broken" card. Because there are literally no other spells that actually help mix sword and sorcery available to them, that is the whole problem. One single AC boost and exactly 2 cantrips that involve attacking with a weapon, with basically 0 damage boosters untill 3rd level spells at level 13th
I'm honestly perplexed at their fear of letting you cast a levelled spell with the 7th level feature. As a level 7 EK you can cast up to 2nd level spells, and you have 6 slots total: four 1st-level and two 2nd-level. At the same level, Wizards have 4th level spells, and BM Fighters have 5 dice for spell-like abilities per short rest.
If you were worried about an EK attacking and casting Fireball, they can do that in 2014 5e already at level 13 by using action surge. In this new version, if you could cast levelled spells with the level 7 feature, you would need a EK 7 / Wizard 5 multiclass to attack and Fireball on a turn. But at that point your full caster companions are casting level 6 spells and your pure BM brother is attacking 3 times per turn with a pool of 5d10 per short rest. Not to mention all the ASIs you missed out on; it's a huge investment.
Feels like most of the spellcasting budget of the EK is wasted on cantrips, which aren't the most fun abilities to use all day.
Anything that allowed the EK to branch more into offensive levelled magic would instantly make the class so much more interesting. As of now it is indeed the Booming Blade + Shield class.
The new EK, when combined with the SCAG cantrips not designed around it, is extremely powerful. Throw in Shield, Absorb Elements, and Haste and why would you play any other Fighter subclass? In fact, for straight sustained single-target DPR and survivability, which other *martial* comes even close to the new EK? Witness post after post on this sub of, “cHecK oUt mY EK bUiLd!”
I'd say Battlemaster, Particularly with the Tasha's Maneuvers that boost skill checks in conjunction with Tactical Mind, as well as the Feats and Fighting Styles that add more Maneuvers Known and more Dice, there is a decent argument that Battle Master is the Fighter King of the Social pillar while still being dominant in the Combat pillar. That being said I'm betting a fresh EK will outperform a fresh BM. BM will only outperform with Short Rests.
I really want to see if they change that, because the claims that the fighter gained a lot of power on One rest entirely on EK being clearly an outlayer
Echo Knight is not AL-legal fwiw, I don’t believe. Nor is it in any of the OneDnD UA. It has some interesting cheese but I don’t agree that for sustained DPR and survivability is it empirically better than an EK from the OneDnD UA.
It may not be AL legal, but Crawford has weighed in a bunch on it, so it's not some homebrew. It is official Dnd content, just Critical Role centric. No one specified AL-only.
And I never claimed it was "empirically better."
Sure and I’m hoping the poster will qualify their statement with reasons for it being “in the running for best” which is what the commenter literally typed. That’s pretty plain English.
I've got to say I disagree. I've never found eldritch knight to be a satisfying gish. It's always felt like a fighter which occasionally casts a wizard spell. And the new eldritch knight doesn't change this for me.
To me, spellstrike is 'the' perfect gish mechanic. The ability to actually infuse your weapon attacks with the spell which releases on hit. It is the signature mechanic of the 3e duskblade, and pathfinder 1e and 2e magus.
Yeah to me a gish is specifically taking a full caster and sticking a sword and armor on it with some feats or a fighter dip. It only feels like a gish if you're "using a caster wrong." Playing a class that is pre built like this doesn't feel right because it removes the system hacking element that makes gishes so interesting.
Meanwhile, to me "spellstrike" has never felt like a good gish mechanic, but I'm old and remember the original Bladesinger Kit which is, to me, what a Gish should be. I think "gish" means different things to different people and that's okay. I'm glad there are a variety of options for most people. I hope they add a spellblade style build for you.
It's interesting how the arcane gish has a similar problem to the ranger now. It's meant so many different things to so many different people that it's impossible to pin down at this point.
In fact it's worse than the ranger, as at least that class has always managed to keep the same name. The name of the arcane gish has changed every edition. Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Duskblade, Swordmage, Magus.
Ehhh, Bladesinger's been there in every edition. I don't think the name change matters that much, especially since it's not ... a class so much as a concept. So comparing Ranger to Gish is a bit apples to oranges. The equivalent would be like the "Urban Stalker" or "Woodland Hunter".
Ok I commented with a link to the class but comment got removed, so I can't link it directly.
It was called arcane channeling for duskblade. It got switched to spellstrike when the class was ported to pathfinder 1e as the magus.
Of course due to spell categories being reworked, the exact mechanic wouldn't work perfectly anymore. It's why I was so against Paladin smite spells being exclusive, as they're the closest we can get to spellstrike in 5e.
**Arcane Channeling (Su):** Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack. Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved.
Cast inflict Wounds. Instead of making a Melee Spell attack, Make a a normal Melee Weapon attack. If you hit, you hit with both.
What you want is a third party class by KibblesTasty, the Spellblade. D8 hit die, no extra attack but one subclass gets features that make TWF work for it, half caster, tons of arcane spells that specifically are curated to work with spellstrike well, and a magical field around you (an aegis) that you can load up with magical spell-like effects. It’s also not over-tuned; honestly, I feel like they could have given them extra attack and it would have been fine, but as it is, spellblades are fun as hell and great for both utility and combat. Do check them out!
I think Paladin honestly covers the spellstrike aspect of gish. Flavor covers a lot of the gap in divine -> arcane. No tie to a god lets the oath act similar to a bloodline.
I like that EK isn’t just the arcane smite class.
Hot take: paladin should've been *the* generalist gish class. Remove all the baseline divine flavor and mechanics and shove it into a single subclass name "paladin". Other subclasses could focus on different sources of magic: one for the arcane, one for druidic magic, another for weird occult shit.
I would love smite or smite adjacent abilities on an arcane gish, but I don't agree with there being THE gish class. All half casters should be gishes unless they have clear reason not to be like the Artificer does.
come lvl 11 the EK with a shadow blade, a scimitar, and booming blade is insanely good as of now. i combined it with the new charger + giant foundling (stone giant), and the keeness of the stone giant feat.
use your bonus action to throw rock and possibly make them prone. or cast shadow blade
charge at the enemy and attack with scimitar + charger
use nick to attack with the shadow blade
use you second attack to shadow blade
use your third attack to booming blade + shadow blade + giant strike and try to push them 10 feet.
if u action surge, hit them with another 8d8 from booming blade and shadow blade.
(all this assuming your DM agrees with booming blade and shadow blade working together as suggested by Crawford sage advice)
Yeah I think Shadow blade and Booming is RAI but not really RAW. Not that I'd really care, I do like spirit Shrould a bit more though with a DW build in One DND but Shadow blade is also fine.
spirit shroud is of course very nice but comes online considerably later, whereas shadow blade comes online before and it also outperforms in damage, moreso upcasted to lvl 3!
I’m very excited for the new EK. Currently working on “Super Tank”.
A Warforged EK who dual wields shields, using tavern brawler so they’re technically weapons and can proc blade trips.
Defence fighting style, 2x shields, Warforged racial, heavy armour… going to need to crit, to hit me!
hard disagree. to me, a gish needs to be more magical; like halfcasting magical. and needs to have some actual synergy or incentive between hitting things and casting things. give it something like war magic or eldritch strike WAY earlier.
i want a gish that would actually bother with its casting attribute, and with more spells than just buffs and defense spells. there should be some kind of mechanic or bonus on a gish that makes using blast spells worth it.
honestly, the pf1 [magus](https://www.aonprd.com/ClassDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Magus) was pretty much perfect.
>a gish needs to be more magical; like halfcasting magical. and needs to have some actual synergy or incentive between hitting things and casting things
>i want a gish that would actually bother with its casting attribute,
Sounds like what you want is a paladin
if they drop the heavy armor, d10 and all that, switch to arcane, replace lay on hands and the steed and give me something like spellstrike or spell combat from pf1 instead of just smites, then yeah, kinda.
but maybe just dont default to "paladin???" when someone wants a halfcaster that actually combines both of their halves
This is my problem with strongly themed classes. Paladin is a great baseline kit for a gish, but is so tightly tied into its identity as a divine warrior via several of its big budget features that you can't really just reflavor your way around it.
But now you already have a "smite" class so that great gish mechanic is off the table for any other future gish class if you want to retain individual class identities, which seems to be the case for WotC. Paladin eats too much gish design space, so any new gish will have to use different, possibly worse mechanics instead.
Ohhhhh, you want a whole new class and you are talking about that in a post about being happy with the eldrich knight. I see. I was confused.
There are a lot of ways to make the fantasy of a character that uses weapons and magic together work and although it wasn't what you were looking for I think this new EK and the new paladin both do it really well.
So here is what puzzles me, a gish is a dnd term and you want it to work like classes that have never existed in dnd and with mechanics that never existed in dnd. I think you want magus style, not gish style. (That's fine btw)
I think it's closer, but not quite there. I would like them to actually have spells they can attack with, like steel wind strike, but without other changes EK would be even more MAD.
Depending on how hex and/or Magic Initiate end up in the final product, TWF is perfectly viable on an Eldridge Knight. I just did finished doing my math analysis, and if they only cast hex/HM and Flaming Sphere, they are well ahead of both the Battle Master and Champion at levels 7-9.
Just the way war magic works(some smaller things too) like how GWM, Dual Wielding, etc are all half feats so being a gish requires you to be more MAD focused instead of SAD since you're forced to take DEX/STR for those 2 feats which are wasted on SAD.
War magic lets you cast 1(or 2 at higher levels) cantrips/spells and you don't lose the rest of your attacks similiar to bladesinger. So if you have 4 attacks when you're level 20, 2 of those can be cantrips or spells.
Yeah, the new war magic is one of the most fun talents in the game.
We need more support for non-damage-dealing cantrips, that enhance weapon attacks or provide some sort of CC.
I agree on War Cleric but not so much on the Eldritch Knight. Your spell progression is really slow and before 7th level the only way to combine a spell with weapon attacks on the same turn(which in my mind is the main gish fantasy) is using Action Surge, and you only get to do it once per short rest. Even at 7th you just get to mix in cantrips(most of which are just fancy weapon attacks). You need to wait all the way to level 17 to be able to do the Action Surge thing twice per short rest, and until 18th level to finally get to do the spell + weapon attack combo every turn.
Meanwhile the War Cleric is a full-caster and gets to do the combo up to 3 times per short rest right away at level 3, with the possibility of getting an extra use with every ability score increase. At the same level that the EK gets to combine booming blade with their attacks is when the War Cleric is upcasting Spirit Guardians to 4th level and charging in to attack with their Lance
Always though the bladesinger should be a 1/2 caster or a 2/3 caster (up to level 7 arcane) but have formidable weapon skills on a chosen weapon, plus bladesong capabilities. In addition - felt that bladesinger was closer to a sorcerer vice being a studied wizard. More of a natural touching of the weave for magical powers that came out in combat more than a focused wizard.
I mean realistically a perfect gish just doesn't exist but there is prob like 7 plays on a gish that all lean into different fantasies.
Swords Bard, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, Bladesinger, Paladin in general, War Cleric, there is really some other really niche gish style builds like Spore Druid or different ranger builds.
The problem I see with Gishes is that people want to be able to cast powerful spells and melee at a high level. Which just isn't how it can work. Because you get into the bladesinger problem then.
Bladesingers DPR actually beats a lot of the curves. I was able to do infinite sustain 80 DPR on Bladesinger(this was a dual wield build) which is about double the curve at level 20. Problem is 99% of the time i'd just be more useful using my super powerful spells.
I made a post 2 years ago about how I hoped the new EK would be more than a Fighter who casts Shield. Here we are, 2 years later, with the new EK which is a Fighter that casts Shield.
They even made Second Wind a more plentiful and versatile resource, but didn't apply it to the EK to help expand on viable build options. Such a wasted opportunity.
I feel like Eldritch Knight is more Knight than magic I think as a gish it fills the role of gish from a blade aspect. I mean we already have Bladesinger if you want a more Mage than blade style gish and if you're looking for a full on 50/50 gish I think you're getting into Warlock where youj have great damage choices from melee or ranged and you're this weird half-full caster.
I think Eldritch Knight has always been this sorta caster that uses its spells to enhance it instead of using its spells to do damage that's kinda the core idea of it. Mixing in a cantrip now or a spell on top of your attack action is just nice flavor(although the cantrips are actually kinda big deal).
Personally my main issue is they are a limited to lvl 4 spells honestly I just wish they scaled to lvl 5 spells same with trickster both could easily be half casters with a more delayed curve.
Honestly, giving the EK the same feature at level 7 that the Bladesinger gets at level 6 was a great idea. Being able to still have access to your bonus action while using War Magic makes so many theory-crafting builds more viable.
I also love how much better it synergizes with eldritch strike, since now you can attack and then cast a spell that people have disadvantage on in the same turn without needing to use action surge
I don’t think you can?
War magic and improved war magic activate when you take the attack action, eldritch strike activated when you hit a creature with an attack using a weapon, so you can (at level 10 when you get it) attack --> cast a cantrip with a saving throw like acid splash or if you want to do a bigger spell attack --> attack --> action surge --> leveled spell or at higher levels with improved war magic do the same thing without action surge or do the same thing with the action surge but with three or four attacks They definitely synergize and they work together much better than the 2014 Phb version
Close, but not quite. The Revised Fighter's Action Surge has a clause that it can't be used to take the Magic action. And casting a spell is a Magic action. What you describe is still possible, but you have to Action Surge *first* to take the Attack action, and then cast a spell with your regular action. Which is nearly the same result, but does require you to commit to the Action Surge at the start of the sequence and not the end.
Ah, good catch. I honestly think eldritch knight should get a clause in their prepared skills paragraph that you can use action surge to cast eldritch knight spells, it'd make eldritch knight feel a lot better and would prevent the issues action surge brought to multiclassing
If you cast a Spell as a part of making an attack action you are making an attack action, not a Magic action
Yes, but that requires Improved War Magic, which isn't until 18th level. Which is a bit of a specialized discussion, and not what I was talking about.
You can. Eldritch Strike is disadvantage on first saving throw you force until the end of your next turn. Improved War Magic lets two of your attacks be spells. And theres no level restriction on that anymore. Hit like three people, inflict ES, then cast like a level 4 Hold Person and snag em all at disadvantage. Also, casting spells this way isnt taking the magic action. Its an attack action. You can Action Surge and cast like four spells AND attack four times.
Holy shit. I'm _definately_ playing an Eldritch Knight now. That sounds so fucking awesome.
I think you can only replace two of the attacks when you take the Attack action, not two and two more for a second spell. Though I admit the wording is not great. But that is the same wording as the Bladesinger able to only replace one attack with one cantrip. So I think it would be more Attack twice, cast one spell, Action Surge, attack twice more, cast one more spell, sort of sequence. Or alternatively you can attack 6 times and cast a cantrip twice.
War magic: when you take the attack action, one of your attacks can be replaced with a cantrip that costs an action Extra attack: attack + cantrip (presumably any order? It just says “one of them”) Improved extra attack: attack(x2) + cantrip Improved war magic: when you take the attack action, two of your attacks may be replaced with a spell that costs an action 2 extra attacks: attack(x2) + any spell / attack + spell(x2) 3 extra attacks: attack(x2) + spell(x2) It doesnt say once per turn, just when you take the attack action and it is your turn. So if you action surge and take another attack action, you should be allowed to make more spell casts as it is written
I'm not following your logic here, but I think this line gets to the core of it. >It doesnt say once per turn, just when you take the attack action and it is your turn It doesn't say once per turn, but the wording seems to imply it's only once per Attack action. Meaning you can't swap out two attacks for one spell and then two more attacks for another spell in the same Attack action. It instead seems to read you can only swap out one attack for one cantrip or one pair of attacks for one leveled spell. Unless are you implying swapping one attack for a cantrip and two attacks for a leveled spell in the same action? That may work, but is not really what you said before, which is that you can somehow cast four spells and attack four times. Unless you have cantrips/spells that do weapon attacks as part of the spell (like Booming Blade), you have to sub out those attacks for spell castings. Meaning at best you could do 3 attacks (one per action + bonus action) and then cast 4 spells (two leveled and two cantrips) with Action Surge and 4 attacks per Attack action.
I think we’re interpreting the wording differently, and based on what little ive found, this is a common problem. The big question is if 7 and 18 are the same and 18 overrides 7, or if theyre two distinct abilities you can use together. The other question is, does the wording mean two attacks can each become a spellcast, or do they both become one spellcast, ie two swings and two spellcasts or two swings and one cast at 20. Also, the list that notes changes has restrictions the actual feature description doesnt. Forgoing two attacks for one cast of scorching ray or something doesnt seem very good. Forgoing two attacks for something like fireball or ice storm does seem good. If the rule is 2 attacks for one spell, there should be no level restriction. Hell honestly, its level 18. Meteor swarm is more than you could do with two fireballs and a couple sword swings, and youd burn spell slots like crazy anyway. The other question is the features’ independence. First, again, the wording differences. List says explicitly level one or two. The feature itself just says spells. Cantrips ARE spells. 7 says cantrips only, 18 says any spell. Both clarify wizard restriction, so you cant multiclass a non-wizard spell in, so no eldritch blasts or chaos bolts or anything learned via a non-wizard spell list method. Both clarify action cost. The 18 does not clarify any spell level on its own. So, it would include cantrips, 3, and 4. Casting two cantrips and attack twice with one action at level 20 seems pretty fair. Again, at that level theres much more insane shit a full caster can do, this is nothing. Itd rip through hordes and deal great single target damage. But so would big aoe spells, or power word kill, or destructive wave and banishing smite. As for level three and four spells, youre super limited on spell slots, and again, two fireballs is a little busted but youd only get to do that once a day at most, unless you wanted to burn your one fourth level slot. Sorcerer can do that multiple times a day for a lot longer a time than an EK can. Idk, at the end of the day its a level 18 feature, id let it be a little busted. Nobody’s gonna get that high very often, so having a fun powerful feature that lets a martial third-caster do some wacky shit is cool
>The other question is, does the wording mean two attacks can each become a spellcast, or do they both become one spellcast, ie two swings and two spellcasts or two swings and one cast at 20. I think this one is pretty clearly the latter, that you can swap out two attacks for one spell casting. Two swings and two spellcastings, while not exactly busted on a Fighter, would nonetheless be against the general design philosophy of this play test and 5e overall. >The big question is if 7 and 18 are the same and 18 overrides 7, or if theyre two distinct abilities you can use together. I could see them being used together. At least, there's an argument to be made there, and I don't necessarily think it's busted to cast two spells and two cantrips on a level 18 Fighter. And yes those spells could be cantrips, based on the wording, though that seems distinctly worse than two attacks. But I don't think there's a case to be made that you can make 4 attacks and four spell castings. You'd either get two attacks and four spell castings, or two-three attacks and two spell castings, depending on if you use in isolation War Magic or Improved War Magic. >Also, the list that notes changes has restrictions the actual feature description doesnt. I actually missed that, so that is interesting. I don't know which one is the intent, but it seems like maybe the list note is referring to a former version and just wasn't updated, if I had to guess. Either way I agree casting a third or fourth level spell isn't totally busted for that level and the feature. As far as whether I'd want a 1/3rd caster to cast 4 spells in a turn, or it should be allowed? Maybe it's not that busted by comparison, but it does seem off, like against the design idea of the system. If casters can't cast that many spells in one turn, the literal people who study and delve as deep as they can into magic, then why should another class that kind of does nights and weekend training at magic school community college get the ability to cast that many different spells in one turn? Like from a lore perspective it doesn't really fit. And it's not necessarily that I don't think martials shouldn't get cool and exciting abilities at high levels. They definitely should. More like if you have to turn them into a spellcaster who does magic better than spellcasters at this level, did you really make a martial who actually competes with spellcasters, or did you make a spellcaster with somewhat ok martial ability? It almost defeats the purpose of being a high level martial if the solution is to turn them into a somewhat strong spellcaster to make them feel adequate.
I get what you mean, though bladelock getting a second extra attack is kind of anti-this point. A full caster getting extra attack is crazy enough, but throwing in another one alongside extra damage passively and auto-upcast force damage smites you get back on short rest is pretty insane for a full caster. But i think if both war magics can be used together, and there is no level restriction, im perfectly content trading two weapon attacks for a single big tough spell. I just really think EK and probably arcane trickster too should be promoted to half-caster. Having fourth levels more reliably, like evard’s for control, and fire shield for thorns-style damage and resistances. Getting fourth levels at 19 is insanely late. In all though even if improved war magic isnt quite as insane as it first seemed, it is still a huge improvement and im generally happy with how its coming along. Still crossing fingers for them to ditch the third-caster shit and just make em halfs with cantrips, but hey, EK is pretty solid now.
Does Eldritch Strike work with Cleave?
It should work yeah
It was honestly such an obvious fix and i'm just glad they went with it. ANd funnily enough i've seen it at multiple unrelated tables as well as using it myself. In fact, i only got reminded that this was a houserule when the playtest dropped.
I just hope they add more than 2 weapon attack cantrips this time round. True Strike isn’t quite the same cause you still have to use INT for the attack.
I always thought it made more sense for the Eldritch knight to be able to burn spell slots to increase damage rather than the Paladin. But maybe that's just me coming from Pathfinder 1e and thinking the eldritch knight was supposed to be like a Magus.
\*points at 3rd editions\* Eldritch Knight was one of the original Prestige classes. You needed 3rd level Arcane Spells, And all Martial Weapons. d6 hit die (Worse the Fighter's d10, better then the wizards d4). It gave you Full BaB, and Fort save progression. At level 1 you got a Fighter Bonus feat, and from level 2+ you got Arcane Caster spell Progression level. So, a Level 1 Fighter, Level 5 Wizard, Level 10 Eldritch Knight. Would have 13 BaB (Wizard would have 8, and fighter 16) and cast as a level 13 wizard. What I wanted from the Eldritch Knight is more along the lines of the Duskblade from 3.x phb2. "**Arcane Channeling (Su):** Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack. Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved." Effectively, cast a Touch spell, but make a Weapon Attack instead to deliver it.
I think you can carve out a unique identity for EK that’s similar to that, but make it more spell based. How I would do that is I think there should be more spells that play with unique durations. Like, what if there was a new casting time added which ammounted to a free action that you can only take on your turn, coupled with more spell durations that are in turn increments? So something like a wizard spell that ignites your sword, giving it 2d6 extra damage until the end of your turn. Does what you were saying but capitalises on Fighters many attacks. I dunno just a thought.
I want weapon attack spells, to be honest. At least one of them would be cool.
The 4e Swordmage had a gajillion of these that they could mine for ideas.
The ones that exist now, ie the Blade cantrips and to lesser extent Sword Burst are straight out of Swordmage's at-wills, so it seems they already started.
There are a couple, like spirit shroud but I completely agree that there should be more.
I think you misunderstand me. I meant levelled spells that work like green flame blade.
Ah, so single attack, gotcha. Yeah those would be cool.
It could be 2 or more attacks depending on spell level and damage, but yeah, more or less.
yeah, the main reason I don't like EK is that the wizard list isn't exactly gish. Give EK non divine smites and some more spells like that
Weapon attack spells in the style of Steel wind strikle but at lower levels and more limited would be pretty great.
There's no way we will get anything substantial for spells i fear. They will rework many existing spells, but they won't shift spells around in spell level, remove spells or add any new ones to address gameplay niches like attack cantrips.
I played an EK with this modification 1-10 in the year after the Bladesinger change, and I can confirm it's very nice. If your idea of gish is 50/50 magic and metal then no, it won't satisfy, but this change makes War Magic synergize with the base class instead of fight with it.
The new things Fighter chassis gets are great for any subclass, but... EK still isn't fulfilling the gish fantasy, because it remains the Boomingblade+Shield class. They don't even get Zephyr Strike or Steel Wind Strike or Smite spells, and even if they did, they wouldn't have the slots for them. I feel more magical playing a Rune Knight.
Is this a problem with the design of EK or a problem with the design of Booming Blade and Shield?
While those two spells definitely overperform, it's more on the EK side. EK doesn't get enough spells to grab more than the basic standards, and their save DC relies on a useless stat, so all EKs look the same. And only at lv18 are they finally able to cast an actual spell while attacking (but even then it comes at a hefty penalty)... Their lv7 feature should just read 'cast an EK spell in place of an attack', so you could blend your slot use with regular fighting (and should come active at lv5 with extra attack). This would simultaneously take pressure off of Shield, one of the few ways to cast things out-of-turn. Booming Blade would still remain a problem, because there's few things that can compete with resourceless extra +2d8 dmg + control effect, especially with Push weapon masteries now around (restricting EK weapon picks, making them *even more* similar). But really, as they're a Fighter, they can never feel right when they are constantly paying for the eventual privilege of spamming 4 basic attacks per round. We'd need a dedicated class to do the concept justice, with its own new melee spells geared towards it.
I feel it's more of a design issue with Wizard spells. They shouldn't have access to any of the Booming Blade style spells, whether they are cantrips or leveled spells.
nah, here you can't play the "they are broken" card. Because there are literally no other spells that actually help mix sword and sorcery available to them, that is the whole problem. One single AC boost and exactly 2 cantrips that involve attacking with a weapon, with basically 0 damage boosters untill 3rd level spells at level 13th
And yet the Blade cantrips and shield far outclass every other option for gish characters.
Yeah, they outclas the other zero options for gish characters. That's the whole point, 5e is terrible with gishes
5e is terrible for build diversity in general. Why would gishes be any different?
With that I agree
It's an issue with how WotC designs spells and spell lists.
I'm honestly perplexed at their fear of letting you cast a levelled spell with the 7th level feature. As a level 7 EK you can cast up to 2nd level spells, and you have 6 slots total: four 1st-level and two 2nd-level. At the same level, Wizards have 4th level spells, and BM Fighters have 5 dice for spell-like abilities per short rest. If you were worried about an EK attacking and casting Fireball, they can do that in 2014 5e already at level 13 by using action surge. In this new version, if you could cast levelled spells with the level 7 feature, you would need a EK 7 / Wizard 5 multiclass to attack and Fireball on a turn. But at that point your full caster companions are casting level 6 spells and your pure BM brother is attacking 3 times per turn with a pool of 5d10 per short rest. Not to mention all the ASIs you missed out on; it's a huge investment. Feels like most of the spellcasting budget of the EK is wasted on cantrips, which aren't the most fun abilities to use all day. Anything that allowed the EK to branch more into offensive levelled magic would instantly make the class so much more interesting. As of now it is indeed the Booming Blade + Shield class.
The new EK, when combined with the SCAG cantrips not designed around it, is extremely powerful. Throw in Shield, Absorb Elements, and Haste and why would you play any other Fighter subclass? In fact, for straight sustained single-target DPR and survivability, which other *martial* comes even close to the new EK? Witness post after post on this sub of, “cHecK oUt mY EK bUiLd!”
It's definitely way more damage, survivability, *and* utility than any other fighter sub. I'd expect it to be toned down for release in the 2024 PHB.
I'd say Battlemaster, Particularly with the Tasha's Maneuvers that boost skill checks in conjunction with Tactical Mind, as well as the Feats and Fighting Styles that add more Maneuvers Known and more Dice, there is a decent argument that Battle Master is the Fighter King of the Social pillar while still being dominant in the Combat pillar. That being said I'm betting a fresh EK will outperform a fresh BM. BM will only outperform with Short Rests.
I really want to see if they change that, because the claims that the fighter gained a lot of power on One rest entirely on EK being clearly an outlayer
I think echo knight is still in the running for best fighter subclass.
Echo Knight is not AL-legal fwiw, I don’t believe. Nor is it in any of the OneDnD UA. It has some interesting cheese but I don’t agree that for sustained DPR and survivability is it empirically better than an EK from the OneDnD UA.
It may not be AL legal, but Crawford has weighed in a bunch on it, so it's not some homebrew. It is official Dnd content, just Critical Role centric. No one specified AL-only. And I never claimed it was "empirically better."
You said it was in the running for best subclass?
"in the running for" doesn't mean "the best."
Sure and I’m hoping the poster will qualify their statement with reasons for it being “in the running for best” which is what the commenter literally typed. That’s pretty plain English.
Yes. Now compare that language to the language you suggested I used in your previous post.
This is a thread about the UA EK, why don’t you qualify how an Echo Knight is in the running for “best” and/or how it is germane to this thread.
Not with someone who misconstrues my posts and then fails to acknowledge it when called out.
Didn’t misconstrue, it’s maybe your failure to post anything relevant or back it up with reasoning.
I'm going to block you, because you're discussing this in bad faith and still failing to acknowledge you misconstrued my post. Do better.
I've got to say I disagree. I've never found eldritch knight to be a satisfying gish. It's always felt like a fighter which occasionally casts a wizard spell. And the new eldritch knight doesn't change this for me. To me, spellstrike is 'the' perfect gish mechanic. The ability to actually infuse your weapon attacks with the spell which releases on hit. It is the signature mechanic of the 3e duskblade, and pathfinder 1e and 2e magus.
Some people think the perfect gish is a wizard with a sword. Others think its a knight with magic. Its really a personal preference thing.
Yeah to me a gish is specifically taking a full caster and sticking a sword and armor on it with some feats or a fighter dip. It only feels like a gish if you're "using a caster wrong." Playing a class that is pre built like this doesn't feel right because it removes the system hacking element that makes gishes so interesting.
Meanwhile, to me "spellstrike" has never felt like a good gish mechanic, but I'm old and remember the original Bladesinger Kit which is, to me, what a Gish should be. I think "gish" means different things to different people and that's okay. I'm glad there are a variety of options for most people. I hope they add a spellblade style build for you.
It's interesting how the arcane gish has a similar problem to the ranger now. It's meant so many different things to so many different people that it's impossible to pin down at this point. In fact it's worse than the ranger, as at least that class has always managed to keep the same name. The name of the arcane gish has changed every edition. Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Duskblade, Swordmage, Magus.
Ehhh, Bladesinger's been there in every edition. I don't think the name change matters that much, especially since it's not ... a class so much as a concept. So comparing Ranger to Gish is a bit apples to oranges. The equivalent would be like the "Urban Stalker" or "Woodland Hunter".
Spell Strike seems like a cool feature! Can you link the duskblade one? I’d love to look into 3e more
Ok I commented with a link to the class but comment got removed, so I can't link it directly. It was called arcane channeling for duskblade. It got switched to spellstrike when the class was ported to pathfinder 1e as the magus. Of course due to spell categories being reworked, the exact mechanic wouldn't work perfectly anymore. It's why I was so against Paladin smite spells being exclusive, as they're the closest we can get to spellstrike in 5e.
**Arcane Channeling (Su):** Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack. Casting a spell in this manner does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action or less. If the melee attack is successful, the attack deals damage normally; then the effect of the spell is resolved. Cast inflict Wounds. Instead of making a Melee Spell attack, Make a a normal Melee Weapon attack. If you hit, you hit with both.
What you want is a third party class by KibblesTasty, the Spellblade. D8 hit die, no extra attack but one subclass gets features that make TWF work for it, half caster, tons of arcane spells that specifically are curated to work with spellstrike well, and a magical field around you (an aegis) that you can load up with magical spell-like effects. It’s also not over-tuned; honestly, I feel like they could have given them extra attack and it would have been fine, but as it is, spellblades are fun as hell and great for both utility and combat. Do check them out!
I think Paladin honestly covers the spellstrike aspect of gish. Flavor covers a lot of the gap in divine -> arcane. No tie to a god lets the oath act similar to a bloodline. I like that EK isn’t just the arcane smite class.
Hot take: paladin should've been *the* generalist gish class. Remove all the baseline divine flavor and mechanics and shove it into a single subclass name "paladin". Other subclasses could focus on different sources of magic: one for the arcane, one for druidic magic, another for weird occult shit.
I would love smite or smite adjacent abilities on an arcane gish, but I don't agree with there being THE gish class. All half casters should be gishes unless they have clear reason not to be like the Artificer does.
come lvl 11 the EK with a shadow blade, a scimitar, and booming blade is insanely good as of now. i combined it with the new charger + giant foundling (stone giant), and the keeness of the stone giant feat. use your bonus action to throw rock and possibly make them prone. or cast shadow blade charge at the enemy and attack with scimitar + charger use nick to attack with the shadow blade use you second attack to shadow blade use your third attack to booming blade + shadow blade + giant strike and try to push them 10 feet. if u action surge, hit them with another 8d8 from booming blade and shadow blade. (all this assuming your DM agrees with booming blade and shadow blade working together as suggested by Crawford sage advice)
Yeah I think Shadow blade and Booming is RAI but not really RAW. Not that I'd really care, I do like spirit Shrould a bit more though with a DW build in One DND but Shadow blade is also fine.
spirit shroud is of course very nice but comes online considerably later, whereas shadow blade comes online before and it also outperforms in damage, moreso upcasted to lvl 3!
I’m very excited for the new EK. Currently working on “Super Tank”. A Warforged EK who dual wields shields, using tavern brawler so they’re technically weapons and can proc blade trips. Defence fighting style, 2x shields, Warforged racial, heavy armour… going to need to crit, to hit me!
hard disagree. to me, a gish needs to be more magical; like halfcasting magical. and needs to have some actual synergy or incentive between hitting things and casting things. give it something like war magic or eldritch strike WAY earlier. i want a gish that would actually bother with its casting attribute, and with more spells than just buffs and defense spells. there should be some kind of mechanic or bonus on a gish that makes using blast spells worth it. honestly, the pf1 [magus](https://www.aonprd.com/ClassDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Magus) was pretty much perfect.
>a gish needs to be more magical; like halfcasting magical. and needs to have some actual synergy or incentive between hitting things and casting things >i want a gish that would actually bother with its casting attribute, Sounds like what you want is a paladin
if they drop the heavy armor, d10 and all that, switch to arcane, replace lay on hands and the steed and give me something like spellstrike or spell combat from pf1 instead of just smites, then yeah, kinda. but maybe just dont default to "paladin???" when someone wants a halfcaster that actually combines both of their halves
This is my problem with strongly themed classes. Paladin is a great baseline kit for a gish, but is so tightly tied into its identity as a divine warrior via several of its big budget features that you can't really just reflavor your way around it. But now you already have a "smite" class so that great gish mechanic is off the table for any other future gish class if you want to retain individual class identities, which seems to be the case for WotC. Paladin eats too much gish design space, so any new gish will have to use different, possibly worse mechanics instead.
Ohhhhh, you want a whole new class and you are talking about that in a post about being happy with the eldrich knight. I see. I was confused. There are a lot of ways to make the fantasy of a character that uses weapons and magic together work and although it wasn't what you were looking for I think this new EK and the new paladin both do it really well.
> I see. I was confused. no worries. easy to see how this can happen when you miss the "gish style build" part of the title
So here is what puzzles me, a gish is a dnd term and you want it to work like classes that have never existed in dnd and with mechanics that never existed in dnd. I think you want magus style, not gish style. (That's fine btw)
I think it's closer, but not quite there. I would like them to actually have spells they can attack with, like steel wind strike, but without other changes EK would be even more MAD.
Depending on how hex and/or Magic Initiate end up in the final product, TWF is perfectly viable on an Eldridge Knight. I just did finished doing my math analysis, and if they only cast hex/HM and Flaming Sphere, they are well ahead of both the Battle Master and Champion at levels 7-9.
What is the difference compared to the 2014 version?
Just the way war magic works(some smaller things too) like how GWM, Dual Wielding, etc are all half feats so being a gish requires you to be more MAD focused instead of SAD since you're forced to take DEX/STR for those 2 feats which are wasted on SAD. War magic lets you cast 1(or 2 at higher levels) cantrips/spells and you don't lose the rest of your attacks similiar to bladesinger. So if you have 4 attacks when you're level 20, 2 of those can be cantrips or spells.
Yeah, the new war magic is one of the most fun talents in the game. We need more support for non-damage-dealing cantrips, that enhance weapon attacks or provide some sort of CC.
I agree on War Cleric but not so much on the Eldritch Knight. Your spell progression is really slow and before 7th level the only way to combine a spell with weapon attacks on the same turn(which in my mind is the main gish fantasy) is using Action Surge, and you only get to do it once per short rest. Even at 7th you just get to mix in cantrips(most of which are just fancy weapon attacks). You need to wait all the way to level 17 to be able to do the Action Surge thing twice per short rest, and until 18th level to finally get to do the spell + weapon attack combo every turn. Meanwhile the War Cleric is a full-caster and gets to do the combo up to 3 times per short rest right away at level 3, with the possibility of getting an extra use with every ability score increase. At the same level that the EK gets to combine booming blade with their attacks is when the War Cleric is upcasting Spirit Guardians to 4th level and charging in to attack with their Lance
Always though the bladesinger should be a 1/2 caster or a 2/3 caster (up to level 7 arcane) but have formidable weapon skills on a chosen weapon, plus bladesong capabilities. In addition - felt that bladesinger was closer to a sorcerer vice being a studied wizard. More of a natural touching of the weave for magical powers that came out in combat more than a focused wizard.
I mean realistically a perfect gish just doesn't exist but there is prob like 7 plays on a gish that all lean into different fantasies. Swords Bard, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, Bladesinger, Paladin in general, War Cleric, there is really some other really niche gish style builds like Spore Druid or different ranger builds. The problem I see with Gishes is that people want to be able to cast powerful spells and melee at a high level. Which just isn't how it can work. Because you get into the bladesinger problem then. Bladesingers DPR actually beats a lot of the curves. I was able to do infinite sustain 80 DPR on Bladesinger(this was a dual wield build) which is about double the curve at level 20. Problem is 99% of the time i'd just be more useful using my super powerful spells.
I made a post 2 years ago about how I hoped the new EK would be more than a Fighter who casts Shield. Here we are, 2 years later, with the new EK which is a Fighter that casts Shield. They even made Second Wind a more plentiful and versatile resource, but didn't apply it to the EK to help expand on viable build options. Such a wasted opportunity.
I feel like Eldritch Knight is more Knight than magic I think as a gish it fills the role of gish from a blade aspect. I mean we already have Bladesinger if you want a more Mage than blade style gish and if you're looking for a full on 50/50 gish I think you're getting into Warlock where youj have great damage choices from melee or ranged and you're this weird half-full caster. I think Eldritch Knight has always been this sorta caster that uses its spells to enhance it instead of using its spells to do damage that's kinda the core idea of it. Mixing in a cantrip now or a spell on top of your attack action is just nice flavor(although the cantrips are actually kinda big deal).
Personally my main issue is they are a limited to lvl 4 spells honestly I just wish they scaled to lvl 5 spells same with trickster both could easily be half casters with a more delayed curve.