D&D 5E Vampiric Touch Opportunity Attack Ruling?

[dmnqwk]

I can picture a wizard/monk striking someone with Vampiric Touch strike 5 times on their turn and adding their unarmed damage plus ability mod. Ya know, cuz that'd be cool.

Or an eldritch knight doing it 9 times with the right feats. Cuz why not?

Well, generally you get 1 reaction per turn, meaning 1 attack of opportunity. Also I would suggest the magic only allows a single touch per turn, meaning if a player has used it on their go they cannot use it as an AoO. You are right that balance is important, even if you are unable to actually depict with a modicum of respect for people attempting to create a balanced ruling on the subject.

 

[jodyjohnson]

You are right that balance is important, even if you are unable to ... respect ... people attempting to create a balanced ruling on the subject.

RAW or balance is important only so far as it facilitates whatever the table considers fun (what Jeremy Crawford refers to as RAF). For some, fun requires RAW. And/or balance. For others, the 'rule of cool' is good enough. I usually float around somewhere in the middle.

My second post was a bookend for the other end of the continuum. Between 'only on your turn as an action' and 'replacing or augmenting any unarmed attack' there are many options.

 

[Nevvur]

Arguably, the rule in the vampiric touch spell description is the general while the Opportunity Attack is the specific, trumping and adding onto the rules. So its uncertain if it's banned by RAW or not.
5e is not a RAW game. You're not supposed to be able to consult the text to resolve each and every debate.

I'd allow it in my game. You cast he spell and its ready. The effect is the same as if you hit in your previous turn, so it's not broken or overpowered (and they might still miss). And it seems cool, giving the spellcaster a heroic moment.

That's not the first time I've heard that (or the first time it's been said in this thread) but it's just sooooo wrong.

Spell descriptions are the specific in every case. That's what magic does both in game and system mechanics-wise. It changes the rules. There is literally no single instance where the spell description does not take precedence over any other rule.

 

[PnPgamer]

Hmm two sword coast women vampiric touching each other...

 

[Jester David]

That's not the first time I've heard that (or the first time it's been said in this thread) but it's just sooooo wrong.

Spell descriptions are the specific in every case. That's what magic does both in game and system mechanics-wise. It changes the rules. There is literally no single instance where the spell description does not take precedence over any other rule.

"Wrong" implies that there's a right. Which isn't so. There's no hierarchy of what is specific. No listing of what trumps what. No placement of spells as the most specific of specific. That's something you're adding, which is a house rule.
And spells do not take precedence over any other rule as class features, feats, monster powers, and more call all change them.

5e is not a game of absolutes where you can make definitive statement based on the firm rules. Declaring something wrong is frankly an act of ego, placing your opinion above the other opinion(s).

 

[Nevvur]

"Wrong" implies that there's a right. Which isn't so. There's no hierarchy of what is specific. No listing of what trumps what. No placement of spells as the most specific of specific. That's something you're adding, which is a house rule.
And spells do not take precedence over any other rule as class features, feats, monster powers, and more call all change them.

5e is not a game of absolutes where you can make definitive statement based on the firm rules. Declaring something wrong is frankly an act of ego, placing your opinion above the other opinion(s).

You're completely wrong.

There are absolutes, and changing them is a house rule. Greatswords do 2d6 + Strength modifier damage, you add your Dexterity modifier to Initiative, and spells create a set of rules that preside over their duration.

Calling the spells the specific rule in every case isn't a house rule, it's understanding what specific means. You can't get a more specific rule than a spell because they inherently create new rules. I'm not saying they ignore interaction with other rules, e.g. a spell cast in the presence of a beholder's antimagic field doesn't still function just because the spell is more specific. However, when there's a question of order of specificity, spells are the default most specific.

I have no vested interest in convincing you or anyone of this fact. Play the game however you want, make it fluid or rigid as suits your play style. But don't come in here telling me 1>2.

 

[Jester David]

You're completely wrong.

aaaaand we're done here.
Good day.

 

[BoldItalic]

... But don't come in here telling me 1>2.

But 1>2 is true for some definitions of the > relation, for example in modulo 2 arithmetic.

*crawls back under stone*
*has an idea*

Gloves of the Vampire
Gauntlets, Probably Unlikely
While wearing these elegant long black leather gloves, you can cast Vampiric Touch as a reaction, once per turn.

 

[spectacle]

Arguably, the rule in the vampiric touch spell description is the general while the Opportunity Attack is the specific, trumping and adding onto the rules. So its uncertain if it's banned by RAW or not.
5e is not a RAW game. You're not supposed to be able to consult the text to resolve each and every debate.

I'd allow it in my game. You cast he spell and its ready. The effect is the same as if you hit in your previous turn, so it's not broken or overpowered (and they might still miss). And it seems cool, giving the spellcaster a heroic moment.

You honestly think the rules for opportunity attacks are more specific than the rules for one particulare spell? Why not let a caster who also has the Extra Attack feature attack with Vampiric Touch twice per round then? The rules for the Attack action are about as "specific" as the opportunity attack rules, so if one overrules the rule in the spell description, why not both?

 

[BoldItalic]

You honestly think the rules for opportunity attacks are more specific than the rules for one particulare spell? Why not let a caster who also has the Extra Attack feature attack with Vampiric Touch twice per round then? The rules for the Attack action are about as "specific" as the opportunity attack rules, so if one overrules the rule in the spell description, why not both?

Ooh, I can answer that one. Extra Attack requires the Attack Action, and spells like Vampiric Touch don't use the Attack Action, they use the Cast-A-Spell Action.