Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Question - Should Eldritch Knights be able to "learn" new spells like a Wizard?

So, I am playing an Eldritch Knight High Elf on my play through here and I finally got to level three, gave her the crown of instant 18 int and I'm rolling around with some scrolls. My question is this, and no I am not angry they can't, but I am curious. Do you all think Eldritch Knights should be able to learn spells from scrolls like a wizard can? From what I remember they were able to do that, because at least, from the editions I played, they had a spell book just like a wizard did. So like the skeleton says in the game, I ask thou again: "Should Eldritch Knights be able to learn spells from scrolls?"

I think it would be a load of fun if they could.

Good question. 5e rules say EKs "commit [spells] to memory instead of keeping them in a spellbook" but also says they "learn your spells through study and memorization"

According to the rules then, it seems like they should be able to learn more spells this way, but their limit would still be their memory: i.e., they couldn't increase the total number of spells they know.
The effect of this would be to bypass the "adjuration/evocation" restrictions on spells known, replacing an adjuration/evocation spell with whatever spell was on the scroll.??
That seems decently balanced

They are not supposed to. DnD 5e rules are clear on that point. They can only a learn a very limited number of spells. It would be completely unbalanced otherwise.

Yeah, 5e rules do not allow Eldritch Knights to use spell books. They can change one of the spells they know when levelling up. They are also supposed to be mostly limited to Abjuration and Evocation spells.

What they can do is multiclass to wizard. 1/3 of your EK levels (rounded down) stack with your wizard levels for determining your spell slots, and you can use those slots to cast either the spells you know as an EK or the spells you know as a wizard.

I think they are more like a sorcerer fighter hybrid than a wizard fighter. And I think it would be too OP if they could.

On that note, I hope Larian will remove the ability of wizards to learn clerical spells. This is way too ridiculous.

I'm not sure what the fluff is for why Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights don't have the ability to learn spells from scrolls, but they don't in the tabletop either despite being Intelligence casters and explicitly described to be practicing bits of wizardry by default.

EK is just a crappy wiz/fig multiclass imo. May as well level a figher to 4 to get a decent base then level a wiz from then. Little bit like the arcane trickster although mage hand of legerdemain is pretty dope.

Personally, although it is against the rules, EK learning all the low level Abjuration and Evocation spells isn't going to make EK OP in anyway as they can only cast a few before long rest. Would make the class more versatile I guess. You can (swap) memorise a new spell at level up which is all well and good but at max level you kinda have to stick with what you got. If wizards can learn cleric spells in DOS&D....Sure let them eat cake.

Eldritch Knights are described as 'committing [spells] to memory rather than keeping them in a spellbook'. Arcane Tricksters don't get such a description but we can assume that they have a similar thinking behind not learning from scrolls.

Remember that copying spells from scrolls is actually inscribing them into a spellbook. If you don't have that spellbook then you cannot copy a spell into it. No spellbook, no 'learning' from scrolls.

Fair.

As a note, with Eldritch Knight, I tend to build with self-buffing in mind and I expect a lot of people look at it as "Swords and magic, I'm going to cast fireballs and wield a sword, yeah!" and that's probably not going to give Eldritch Knight the best use. Much better to, say, cast Jump and Expeditious Retreat on yourself so you're now a Fighter that's sort of Monking around the battlefield.

Granted you're limited in those spells...because they're not Abjuration or Evocation....but apparently you can start with them and you get a handful of "any school" levels.

Hmm, guess EK changed and is different than I remember them being. That's fine as I said 5E EK is fine by me, was just curious if you thought they should have the ability to learn spells from scrolls. Personally I just use my spells as ranged options to deal with runners or teleporting spiders that are uber jerks and won't stay still. Even if you do have jump and expeditious retreat they can teleport all over the map at nearly unlimited distance and don't have to have line of sight. If I'm being totally honest though I still think Battlemaster is the best fighter path at the moment. At least if you miss your Battlemaster die isn't expended and you only need a short rest to renew them and your fighter abilities. I don't think they are necessarily bad, but the EK could be better. They used to be a Prestige Class, but not sure if said Prestige classes exist anymore considering Assassin now is a sub-class for Rogues that I'm seeing from the 5E rules I glanced over.

The EK is the fighter that wants to have a little bit of magic to give it some versatility and flavor, without sacrificing the martial prowess that comes with going full fighter. It's only a 1/3 caster compared to a wizards full caster, so it doesn't get access to the full magical capabilities of a wizard. That would be a disservice to fullcasters.

There are important spells missing from EA so far. All spellcasters feel this, so martial classes are a bit dominant. The EK is notably missing shield, which usually let's them wield 2H while still being almost impossible to hit, which the lack of heavy armor doesn't help with either.

They should not if we stick to RAW, I am unsure whether it is a bug, or is it intended. But honestly ? I think it's an interesting way to give them a little bit more utility (although they should be limited to abjuration and evocation).
It should not break the game either, because their spell slots are incredibly limited, and INT is still tertiary stat for them. With INT at 12-14, you are not going to use most of the spells anyway, at least not effectively, and the difference between EK having access to 4 useful spells, instead of 2 (You won't find more than like 4 anyway) is marginal power wise.

Agreed. Cast two spells and attack as a bonus in the same turn is powerful enough.


It would add some spice to that class, but eldritch knights are not pure casters, and wizards are the only ones that could have a spellbook and learn spells without feats, that would make wizards less distinctive.

Eldritch knights already have "weapon bond" and the powerful War magic and Eldritch strike at higher levels, currently not implemented. They do not really need more spells.

I think that it'd kinda undermine Wizard a bit tbh.
Just let that be Wizards thing.

I like giving my EKs the magic initiate and ritual caster feats to give them extra spell casting options. This is an acceptable work around for me. The subclass should be kept as is.

Yeah, I think this is an issue caused by the idea that a caster should be able to do massive damage spells in order to be proper casters and really, Damage and Heal spells are pretty inefficient use of spell slots...Full Casters have enough slots that they can do that fairly freely, but if a half-caster or third-caster tries to specialize in damage dealing they'll find they only have enough fuel for a little bit of activity.

Even with Full Casters I usually want to use things that impact the circumstances of the battle or situation rather than just direct damage. But I tend to feel that Half-Casters and Third-Casters just flat don't have the fuel to have damage-dealing the main focus of their casting.

A dex-based Eldritch Knight with Mage Armor avoids the necessity of an attunement slot and extra weight at the cost of a spell slot. Longstrider increases base move speed by 10 for a long duration which is more effective than you might think. Protection from Evil and Good on someone with decent AC makes undead, fey, fiends, elementals, abberations, and celestials much easier to deal with.

I think its more they are melee fighters that know a few spells.. they focus on melee not spells so they have no time to specialise in mage work..

Yes, and to add to that, I interpret the difference between EK and AT and a full wizard as analogous to knowing how to say a few phrases in a foreign language versus being fully fluent. EKs and ATs learn a few specific spells and commit them to memory and can understand how to use a scroll that they find, but they don’t have the training, the experience, or the arcane literacy to compile a spell book full of incantations that they can prepare at will. They rely on rote memorization rather than the deep, granular comprehension of a true wizard.