D&D 5E Warcaster and Eldritch Blast

[zaratan]

you could use a whip in one hand, now you reach is 10ft, so you don't get desadvantage in the EB. You don't need to attack with this whip. But you need a hand free to acess material components for EB, if you drop your shillelagh, you'll need to cast it again and not every DM will let you drop the whip, since you would use this weapon for the OA.

If you get crossbow expert you can cast EB at 5ft without desadvantage.

EB do more damage than BB if you don't multiclass as pali/rogue/ranger/fighter...
[MENTION=97587]Kithas[/MENTION], wand of the war mage add +1 only in spell attack rolls, not in damage.

 

[pdegan2814]

you could use a whip in one hand, now you reach is 10ft, so you don't get desadvantage in the EB. You don't need to attack with this whip. But you need a hand free to acess material components for EB, if you drop your shillelagh, you'll need to cast it again and not every DM will let you drop the whip, since you would use this weapon for the OA.

Based on this tweet from Jeremy Crawford(http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/27/war-caster-feat/), a reach weapon's reach can trigger an Opportunity Attack with the reach weapon and only the reach weapon. At least, that's the intent. If you had War Caster along with Spell Sniper, I could see an argument for allowing Booming Blade to be cast as an Opportunity Attack at 10ft, provided the weapon you attack with as part of the casting is a reach weapon(dunno if there's an official ruling for this). Not sure about Green-Flame Blade, I haven't seen anything official about the secondary target and whether that disqualifies it from War Caster.

 

[zaratan]

Based on this tweet from Jeremy Crawford(http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/27/war-caster-feat/), a reach weapon's reach can trigger an Opportunity Attack with the reach weapon and only the reach weapon. At least, that's the intent. If you had War Caster along with Spell Sniper, I could see an argument for allowing Booming Blade to be cast as an Opportunity Attack at 10ft, provided the weapon you attack with as part of the casting is a reach weapon(dunno if there's an official ruling for this). Not sure about Green-Flame Blade, I haven't seen anything official about the secondary target and whether that disqualifies it from War Caster.

In this tweet really looks like he was talking about the polearm master OA, that I really agree that you need to use the polearm. But leaving the reach is just the normal OA that war caster should be used. How you're using a reach weapon, your reach now is 10ft, the enemy don't provoke more OA if he go to 5ft to 10ft (he said that in other tweet but I can't find), so if I want to user a whip and have war caster, I can't do more AO? This make no sense.

But if your DM follow every post of JC (even the absurd ones), will not work.

About GFB, there is a conflict about RAW and RAI. RAI you can't use GFB with warcaster, since you can damage a second creature. RAW, you only "target" one creature, but cause damage in a second too.

This is specially interesting with Ice Knife, as a sorcerer by RAW you could twin it as GFB. By RAI you can't.

war caster OA would be very usefull if you're great old one patron, dissonant whisppers make things great. This is the best "desengage" spell you can have.

 

[RCanine]

Unless you are casting specifically v.s. spells. With those you cannot use the material component hand for somatic bc there isnt a material component. Eldritch blast, hellish rebuke, thunderwave, are some relevant examples.

That's what your free object interaction is for; you can just sheath your weapon. IMO the "no v.s. w/ warcaster" interpretation is unfun and awkward and I wouldn't use it as DM.

 

[Kithas]

That's what your free object interaction is for; you can just sheath your weapon. IMO the "no v.s. w/ warcaster" interpretation is unfun and awkward and I wouldn't use it as DM.

Sure you can stow your weapon. You wont have it out for a reaction though...
Thats one of the main boosts from having warcaster, taking it away basically invalidates the feat.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

I would not have the spell cast at disadvantage as the target is moving away and not threatening. This may not be RAW, but I think it is the intent of the feat.

 

[pdegan2814]

I would not have the spell cast at disadvantage as the target is moving away and not threatening. This may not be RAW, but I think it is the intent of the feat.

Pretty sure the target is still within 5ft as your OA triggers, otherwise nobody would be able to actually make OA's. Think about it, if the enemy is beyond 5ft, how would you make an OA with an axe, or a longsword? Unless there's a magical space right on the 5ft line where non-reach melee weapons can hit but you aren't considered "in melee" with them for spellcasting purposes, but I don't think there is.

As for "not threatening", the actual wording is that you have disadvantage on the ranged attack roll(weapon or spell) if you have a hostile creature within 5ft who can see you and isn't incapacitated(i.e. unable to take actions). Moving away from someone doesn't automatically mean you're no longer hostile, you might just be moving to attack a different target. If the monster were to drop his weapon, put his hands up and say "you win, I give up, don't kill me!", and your party accepts their surrender, then one could argue that they're no longer hostile, though if you tried to make an OA against one of them it's a pretty clear sign that you still consider them to be hostile