D&D 5E Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger Multiclass War Magic-Extra attack class features

[Seramus]

except War Magic does not say "you use the action to cast a spell". It says "use your action to cast a cantrip". And when you use the bladsinger extra attack feature, you are 'using your action' and 'you are casting a cantrip' and thus like i said, the wording is easily read in a way that the synergy is perfectly compatible, so i understand why Crawford ruled it as compatible.

Yes, the wording makes it agnostic to what kind of action is used to cast the cantrip. The design choice is a little bit of a head scratcher, since casting a cantrip almost always requires some kind of action, but then Sage Advice swoops in and says that was the intent. Speaking personally, the result is far from overpowered, so I wouldn't have any issue with it regardless.

 

[LeGamer]

i don't see it as that, warmagic is checking if your action to be spent on casting a cantrip, not 'part of your action', plus you're not using your action to cast a cantrip, you're using it to take the attack action, which you're then substituting part of that action to cast a cantrip, i feel the wording is quite clear and is not supportive of either interpretation.

but i've made my stance clear, do with it what you will.

if you can't see the 'interpretation' in what you are doing, you are not really trying to steelman the wording enough. ultimately Crawford thinks you are interpreting it wrong tho, so... i mean you are accusing him of being wrong? or at the very least you are accusing WotC of bad phrasing.... which they certainly can be accused of. However in that case we have to take Crawford's RAI as the correct ruling...

 

[LeGamer]

Considering that bladesinger isn’t a core PHB class, I imagine they never thought of how the two might interact. If it were a core class, I’m sure there would be less overlap or have some kind of guidance in the rules. The same way it says multiple attacks don’t stack from different classes. That said, my opinion is the rules are pretty clear you don’t get to stack the two abilities and I don’t think there was any Intention for them to stack because the designers probably never thought about how they’d interact. but, a dm ruling on a non-core class to stack with a core class so a player can benefit from both seems reasonable as long as the player isn’t going to cheese it up. Given you can make an off hand attack with a bonus action, it probably isn’t game breaking to allow the extra attack.

IMO.

"designers probably never thought of"

did you watch the Crawford video. he (a designer) seems to have thought about, ..... either that or he's just winging it and getting it all wrong all over the place (i guess this is possible, but i'd expect a bit more from them when they host a live Sage Advice sitting)

 

[LeGamer]

For me there isn’t much ambiguity and the RaW is clear; these two features shouldn’t stack. Either you use your action to cast a cantrip or you use the attack action, but war magic isn’t worded as “if at some point during your turn you cast a cantrip…”

That said; it’s neither OP nor out of character to do 2 attacks and a cantrip using both your action and bonus action on a lvl13 build evenly-split multiclass fighter-mage concept. The campaign is about to end and you managed to find a nice capstone. In the meantime the fighter has been doing 3 attacks for the last two levels and your pure-wizard friend is chugging 7th level spells. I don’t see any issues here.

you can't in good faith say the RaW is clear. if the WarMagic feature had said, 'you use the magic action to cast a cantrip spell', THEN it is clear. the way its phrased allows the call that Crawford made. I'm fine with people saying it could go either way, i'm not fine with people being all absolutist and saying 'it is clear'.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Despite the fact that those were both technically valid subclasses at the same time, I don't think they should be used together. Original 5e Bladesinger (which I liked better than the revised version) had no such feature. When they changed it (unnecessarily vastly increasing it's melee damage potential to be competitive with, or maybe even superior to, fighters at many levels, while limiting its defensive bladesong ability to no longer be something you have enough uses that it can be assumed in most fights) this feature appeared. When I first saw it I figured there was a strong chance this was intended as a replacement for the Eldritch Knight's feature, and that they would eventually change it, as they eventually did in 2024.

In other words, this was always a forerunner belonging to 2024 design. Using it with 2014 is a bit like saying sorcerer uses the versions of spells from the 2024 PHB while wizard uses the versions of spells from 2014 PHB.

If course, the way they changed it means most people don't even have access to the original better made bladesinger.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

"designers probably never thought of"

did you watch the Crawford video. he (a designer) seems to have thought about, ..... either that or he's just winging it and getting it all wrong all over the place (i guess this is possible, but i'd expect a bit more from them when they host a live Sage Advice sitting)

I didn’t watch it. I feel like a lot of Sage advice stuff is just them reading RAW without even thinking about the fluff or making ad hoc calls on weird situations they never thought of - Essentially, doing the job of a table’s DM and making a judgement call. I never take Sage Advice as actual ruling until it’s become official errata or added in new books.

There’s been so much garbage rulings on Sage Advice that I don’t trust it.

 

[Laurefindel]

you can't in good faith say the RaW is clear. if the WarMagic feature had said, 'you use the magic action to cast a cantrip spell', THEN it is clear. the way its phrased allows the call that Crawford made. I'm fine with people saying it could go either way, i'm not fine with people being all absolutist and saying 'it is clear'.

This is, as stated in the OP, as worded in 5e14 so the ‘Magic’ action does not exist yet. However, casting a spell (or a cantrip) was an action type.

In that regard, the 5e24 nomenclature is clearer with the addition of the Magic action.

Now I have half a mind to see what other instances of “when you use an action to cast X” there was in 5e14, and what could change it it were interpreted as “if you use an action that somehow results in X being cast”. There can’t be that many broken combos or they would have shown up already, but I’m sure there’s a few comical ones.

 

[mellored]

"designers probably never thought of"

did you watch the Crawford video. he (a designer) seems to have thought about, ..... either that or he's just winging it and getting it all wrong all over the place (i guess this is possible, but i'd expect a bit more from them when they host a live Sage Advice sitting)

They definitely didn't think of every combination in 2014. So a lot of Sage Advice was "I guess we did write it that way".

I mean, your comparing maybe 10 people who wrote it vs hundreds of thousands who look for exploits. The 10 are going to lose.

They do a better job with 2024, as you would expect with 10 more years. Though they still messed up a few things (out of turn movement for spirit guardians off their turn, Eldrich Blast with Conjure Minor Elementals, one handed dual wielding)


But as for the EK/Bladesinger, that's not a problem. More at-will damage, but you trace away higher level control spells like force cage, nor the higher level Fighters defenses and feats.