D&D 5E Warcaster, polearm master and learning to love the optimizing?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Depends what his strength is.

Quite true. I guess I just assumed if he's a fighter and using a non-finesse weapon, he probably has a decent strength, so AC is comparable.

Basically the point is, he is a little too MAD, and won't be as survivable as a pure melee combatant (Fighter or Paladin) despite his damage.

Oh definitely. His saves will be a point or two lower in some places and his HP will be a couple behind on average per level (tertiary con). I was just saying he's not super squishy like a wizard.

Also the wording of Agonizing Blast is a bit curious. The trigger is "When you cast eldritch blast, add your Charisma modifier to the damage it deals on a hit". You could argue that this is only one flat +cha bonus when you cast the spell, instead of per blast. Honestly though I get a different answer in my head every time I read it, but I feel that this is more in line with other cantrips and class abilities (potent spell, for example).

I guess you could lawyer it up that way if you want, but I think the general consensus is the "on a hit" is the main issue, and since it hits multiple times, applies multiple times. The "when you cast" differentiates it from some other method of generating eldritch blast (magic item, scroll, giant robot that shoots eldritch blast).

I really feel that eldritch blast and agonizing blast (and Hex) are where a bulk of the warlock's power comes from, so uch that they should have just been class features (maybe allowing bladelock abilities as alternate features). Given their low number of spells, they get quickly reduced to spamming cantrips assuming multiple fights between short rests, and non-eldritch blast cantrip damage really kind of scales poorly.

 

[DaveDash]

I guess you could lawyer it up that way if you want, but I think the general consensus is the "on a hit" is the main issue, and since it hits multiple times, applies multiple times. The "when you cast" differentiates it from some other method of generating eldritch blast (magic item, scroll, giant robot that shoots eldritch blast).

I really feel that eldritch blast and agonizing blast (and Hex) are where a bulk of the warlock's power comes from, so uch that they should have just been class features (maybe allowing bladelock abilities as alternate features). Given their low number of spells, they get quickly reduced to spamming cantrips assuming multiple fights between short rests, and non-eldritch blast cantrip damage really kind of scales poorly.

I don't think the damage however is meant to be comparable to melee damage (1d10+ability score modifier on each hit) given it's a ranged attack. I dunno, it's a tough one. +5 on each attack feels too much for a 1d10 ranged attack that does not have any restrictions like the loading property, isn't subject to ammo, and isn't subject to piercing resistance (in fact it's one of the best damage types in the game).

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Its a dex fighter with a slightly more damaging bow, but also doesn't get sharpshooter, magic weapon damage, etc. Lower base range, gotta invest in your fairly limited resources (cantrip, invocation slot). The archer fighter probably has archery style, so has a 2 point attack advantage on you.

Lots of games don't track ammo (I don't unless its a plot issue, like being shipwrecked, lost in the desert, etc). I feel its probably too much for just a 2 level dip, but fine for someone with the majority of their class levels in warlock.

 

[Dausuul]

I wouldn't allow it. I am less concerned with the combo being overpowered (though it is, moderately) than with establishing a precedent: Trying to exploit loopholes in the written rules to get around the obvious intent is not going to fly at my table. Given that the 5E rules were written in a relatively casual way, putting simplicity ahead of lawyer-proofing, this is a vital precedent to set.

If a PC was built around this loophole, the player would get my permission to rebuild--this time--as a single-classed fighter or a single-classed warlock.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I wouldn't allow it. I am less concerned with the combo being overpowered (though it is, moderately) than with establishing a precedent: Trying to exploit loopholes in the written rules to get around the obvious intent is not going to fly at my table.

In what way is the intent obvious? I don't see the rationale justifying warcaster via polearm mastery as being any different to the rationale justifying the base warcaster feat in the first place.

 

[Dausuul]

In what way is the intent obvious? I don't see the rationale justifying warcaster via polearm mastery as being any different to the rationale justifying the base warcaster feat in the first place.

Polearm Master: "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they come within your reach."

The fact that it specifies the weapon you are wielding makes it clear the intent was for you to make the OA with that weapon.

 

[DaveDash]

Its a dex fighter with a slightly more damaging bow, but also doesn't get sharpshooter, magic weapon damage, etc. Lower base range, gotta invest in your fairly limited resources (cantrip, invocation slot). The archer fighter probably has archery style, so has a 2 point attack advantage on you.

Lots of games don't track ammo (I don't unless its a plot issue, like being shipwrecked, lost in the desert, etc). I feel its probably too much for just a 2 level dip, but fine for someone with the majority of their class levels in warlock.

True. I see your point.
[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] I agree with you, I don't think RAI that polearm master is intended to work that way with warcaster.

 

[Dausuul]

I really feel that eldritch blast and agonizing blast (and Hex) are where a bulk of the warlock's power comes from, so uch that they should have just been class features (maybe allowing bladelock abilities as alternate features). Given their low number of spells, they get quickly reduced to spamming cantrips assuming multiple fights between short rests, and non-eldritch blast cantrip damage really kind of scales poorly.

I agree. Even with Agonizing Blast dealing damage on every hit, warlocks can't keep up with the warrior classes on damage. The extra +2 to hit from Archery more than compensates for the lower damage die of the longbow, to say nothing of all the other benefits the warriors get. Plus warlocks are limited to light armor (and Dex is not their primary stat) and d8 hit dice.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Polearm Master: "While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they come within your reach."
The fact that it specifies the weapon you are wielding makes it clear to me the intent was for you to make the OA with that weapon.

And warcaster makes it fairly clear to me that the spell is being channeled through your weapon or unarmed strike somehow, so it makes perfect sense that in whatever scenario you might be making an OA with a weapon, you can replace that with a spell. Effectively you ARE making the OA with the weapon - but it's hit and damage are replaced with the effect of casting a spell from a restricted list.

To me it's clear the the RaI on this particular combo of feats is "actually we didn't think about that which is why there is no intent clearly readable in the rules".

I'm far from advocating that the combo should proceed without oversight - but punishing players for being confident that they've read rules correctly seems hubristic, especially when the combo that is arrived at is so mediocre in effect and interesting in flavour.

 

[DaveDash]

And warcaster makes it fairly clear to me that the spell is being channeled through your weapon or unarmed strike somehow, so it makes perfect sense that in whatever scenario you might be making an OA with a weapon, you can replace that with a spell. Effectively you ARE making the OA with the weapon - but it's hit and damage are replaced with the effect of casting a spell from a restricted list.

To me it's clear the the RaI on this particular combo of feats is "actually we didn't think about that which is why there is no intent clearly readable in the rules".

I'm far from advocating that the combo should proceed without oversight - but punishing players for being confident that they've read rules correctly seems hubristic, especially when the combo that is arrived at is so mediocre in effect and interesting in flavour.

Warcaster makes no mention of this. There is nothing in the text that ties it to a weapon.

In fact it seems to imply to me that you cast your spell IN PLACE of an attack. It states "You can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack". So this would indicate very much so that you're NOT channelling anything through your weapon.