D&D 5E Point me to the rule please:

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think a distinction between crunch and fluff is particularly helpful as there is no clear line of demarcation in this "rules as guidelines" edition. *snip* So, I think you're correct in not viewing this type of language as restrictive. But I think its more helpful when interpreting the rules to view these instances as defining certain actions as typical of a hostile creature, rather than to simply disregard the language as "not crunch".

Okay. "Crunch" vs. "fluff" isn't a distinction I make at the table anyway; it's just language which is occasionally useful when discussing things on the Internet. The key point is that I have no problem allowing people to make melee weapon attacks or opportunity attacks on friendly creatures, so for me Mistwell's quandary doesn't exist. But that also means that Warcaster is fairly unique in allowing you to convert full action spells to reaction spells.

I think what I'm likely to do if someone expresses an interest in Warcaster is to say one of the following:

Option #1: Warcaster allows you to cast a spell with an attack roll in place of making an opportunity attack. The game logic in this case is that "spells with an attack roll spend most of their action lining up the attack, in the same way that shooting a crossbow spends most of its action lining up the shot. Pulling the trigger is a trivial effort, and Warcaster just trains you to line up the shot and pull that spell's "trigger" instinctively when a retreating enemy gives you the opening." In short, attack roll spells are physically quicker and easier to cast.

Option #2: When you gain this feat, choose a specific spell with a casting time of 1 action or 1 bonus action and a circumstance under which you cast this spell instinctively. E.g. "When a hostile enemy retreats from melee, I can automatically cast Hold Monster." This is both stronger and weaker than RAW Warcaster, but it is way easier to adjudicate: the game physics explanation is that you've practiced that specific spell to the point where you can cast it as a reaction.

I like option #2 better.

 

[Hriston]

The key point is that I have no problem allowing people to make melee weapon attacks or opportunity attacks on friendly creatures, so for me Mistwell's quandary doesn't exist.

Huh. It's just that if you take hostile actions against a friendly creature, you've turned your friend into an enemy, so you really aren't attacking a friendly creature. That may seem like semantics, but I think it's the game's way of avoiding the problem you've spelled out up-thread vis-a-vis Warcaster. If, on the other hand, your friend leaves your reach and you attempt to use the feat to cast a spell that does not harm them, in what way are they hostile to you? Under the feat, as is, such a thing just wouldn't work. Some spells are harmful and some are helpful. I haven't looked, but it would be interesting to see if helpful spells have similar language about targeting only friendly creatures.

But that also means that Warcaster is fairly unique in allowing you to convert full action spells to reaction spells.

I don't see why this is a problem, considering the rules for opportunity attacks already convert melee weapon attacks that can take a full action into melee weapon attacks that only take a reaction. Is there a real difference?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Huh. It's just that if you take hostile actions against a friendly creature, you've turned your friend into an enemy, so you really aren't attacking a friendly creature. That may seem like semantics, but I think it's the game's way of avoiding the problem you've spelled out up-thread vis-a-vis Warcaster. If, on the other hand, your friend leaves your reach and you attempt to use the feat to cast a spell that does not harm them, in what way are they hostile to you? Under the feat, as is, such a thing just wouldn't work. Some spells are harmful and some are helpful. I haven't looked, but it would be interesting to see if helpful spells have similar language about targeting only friendly creatures.

I don't see why this is a problem, considering the rules for opportunity attacks already convert melee weapon attacks that can take a full action into melee weapon attacks that only take a reaction. Is there a real difference?

Attacking a friend doesn't necessarily make them hostile, even temporarily. Two fairly obvious cases spring to mind where attacking would be an act of friendship:

1.) Striking a barbarian to keep his bloodlust up (thus reducing the total damage he will take next turn),
2.) Snapping an ally out of unconsciousness or Domination a la Short Round with Indiana Jones. "Indy, I love you! Wake up! [swings torch in Indy's face]"

RE: "That may seem like semantics, but I think it's the game's way of avoiding the problem you've spelled out up-thread vis-a-vis Warcaster." That still seems like semantics. I can quickly cast Polymorph on an enemy to turn someone into a newt so I can step on him, but I can't quickly cast Polymorph on an ally to turn him into a fish so he can breathe water? Naw, that's bogus. I'm not going to enforce that rule.

RE: "I don't see why this is a problem, considering the rules for opportunity attacks already convert melee weapon attacks that can take a full action into melee weapon attacks that only take a reaction. Is there a real difference?" As explained in my option #1 above, conceptually the weapon attack doesn't take a full action--most of the action is lining things up so you can make the weapon attack. High-level fighters in this view don't physically move faster than 1st level fighters, they are just way better at lining things up so they get more attacks per action. Opportunity attacks do have some significant problems from a realism perspective, in that it's quite odd for retreating to cause a defensive penalty when in real life it's more of a defensive advantage, but as far as Warcaster goes I could live with just ruling that spells which require an attack roll are more like weapon attacks in that they are quick and easy to cast, and most of the "action" of casting them is lining up the shot. Ergo they are more like weapon attacks and can, with Warcaster, be cast as an opportunity attack. I don't favor this solution but I like it a lot better than allowing any single-target spell to be cast as a reaction, but only under oddly specific circumstances which involve someone retreating from you at high speed. That's just plain weird and inappropriate, IMO.

I'm not sure if I answered your question because it sounds like you still think of "hostile" as significant--but then I'm not really sure I understand your position from a game-physics perspective because there are things you say in post #62 which confuse me, e.g. why it isn't just semantics that hitting an ally with a melee attack is a "hostile" act, and then I also don't understand how that relates to Warcaster unless it's via circular argument. So there is probably an assumption which you and Mistwell share which I am missing.

 

[Hriston]

Attacking a friend doesn't necessarily make them hostile, even temporarily. Two fairly obvious cases spring to mind where attacking would be an act of friendship:

1.) Striking a barbarian to keep his bloodlust up (thus reducing the total damage he will take next turn),

By the rules, that doesn't count as an attack unless the barbarian resists your blow. That's the assumption behind the attack roll. If the barbarian resists your attack, necessitating an attack roll, then she is trying to hinder your goal of harming her, and is by definition hostile. If the barbarian remains friendly and allows you to strike without resistance then no attack roll is needed and it doesn't count as an attack. As a DM I'd probably call for critical damage.

2.) Snapping an ally out of unconsciousness or Domination a la Short Round with Indiana Jones. "Indy, I love you! Wake up! [swings torch in Indy's face]"

Without orders to the contrary, a dominated creature "defends and preserves itself to the best of its ability." If you try to harm it, it will resist. The game defines this state as hostility, no matter how good someone's intentions might be.

RE: "That may seem like semantics, but I think it's the game's way of avoiding the problem you've spelled out up-thread vis-a-vis Warcaster." That still seems like semantics. I can quickly cast Polymorph on an enemy to turn someone into a newt so I can step on him, but I can't quickly cast Polymorph on an ally to turn him into a fish so he can breathe water? Naw, that's bogus. I'm not going to enforce that rule.

But the intent of the feat isn't to allow you to cast all your 1 action spells as reactions. It's to allow you to substitute a spell for an opportunity attack. I maintain that opportunity attacks are, by their nature, hostile actions. Casting a spell on a willing creature is not hostile and so wouldn't depend on them dropping their defenses as leave your reach. A friendly creature isn't defending themselves from you in the first place.

RE: "I don't see why this is a problem, considering the rules for opportunity attacks already convert melee weapon attacks that can take a full action into melee weapon attacks that only take a reaction. Is there a real difference?" As explained in my option #1 above, conceptually the weapon attack doesn't take a full action--most of the action is lining things up so you can make the weapon attack. High-level fighters in this view don't physically move faster than 1st level fighters, they are just way better at lining things up so they get more attacks per action. Opportunity attacks do have some significant problems from a realism perspective, in that it's quite odd for retreating to cause a defensive penalty when in real life it's more of a defensive advantage, but as far as Warcaster goes I could live with just ruling that spells which require an attack roll are more like weapon attacks in that they are quick and easy to cast, and most of the "action" of casting them is lining up the shot. Ergo they are more like weapon attacks and can, with Warcaster, be cast as an opportunity attack. I don't favor this solution but I like it a lot better than allowing any single-target spell to be cast as a reaction, but only under oddly specific circumstances which involve someone retreating from you at high speed. That's just plain weird and inappropriate, IMO.

The idea is that they are dropping their defenses, leaving themselves vulnerable for a moment which the warcaster can take advantage of. That doesn't conceptually apply to an ally. As for weapon-attacks or spell-attacks taking an action, I'd think of any "lining-up" as part of the attack, and that an action isn't really a specific unit of time, but is rather a unit that measures how much stuff you can do on your turn. The benefit of the feat is that under specific circumstances in which you could use your reaction, you can use a certain type of action instead, a 1-action casting time spell, to accomplish the same thing, i.e. take advantage of its lowered defenses.

I'm not sure if I answered your question because it sounds like you still think of "hostile" as significant--but then I'm not really sure I understand your position from a game-physics perspective because there are things you say in post #62 which confuse me, e.g. why it isn't just semantics that hitting an ally with a melee attack is a "hostile" act, and then I also don't understand how that relates to Warcaster unless it's via circular argument. So there is probably an assumption which you and Mistwell share which I am missing.

I can't speak for [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], but my assumption, supported by the rules I have cited, is that "hostile" actually means something. It means a creature stands in opposition to what you are trying to do. The mechanics for attacks, opportunity attacks, and the like are only appropriate in situations where hostility exists between two or more parties, as I believe I addressed above with the barbarian example. It relates to Warcaster in that the intent of the feat is to grant special abilities in the service of attacking your enemy. If it was called Help-your-friend-out-in-a-pinch-caster, I could see it being a problem that it doesn't let you polymorph your allies. I'm not sure what you mean by game-physics. As exceptions to the rules, I think we can consistently expect feats to break the game physics in one way or another.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not sure what you mean by game-physics. As exceptions to the rules, I think we can consistently expect feats to break the game physics in one way or another.

Ah. Okay, as expected, the crux of the difference is that I'm oriented around game physics and largely indifferent to game balance; you seem to be the opposite from what you write here. I find it highly disturbing that you'd force attacks on a friendly barbarian to auto-hit and auto-crit, implying extra vulnerability to friends, but would also deny Warcasting Polymorph against friends because they don't grant you that window of vulnerability, implying reduced vulnerability. I find it disturbingly inconsistent on physics grounds-- but you like the kind of game that results and you take it as a given that feats will lead to inconsistencies, so it doesn't bother you as long as RAW is being followed. Game play over simulationism.

Does that seem to you like the gist of the difference between our respective goals?

 

[Hriston]

Ah. Okay, as expected, the crux of the difference is that I'm oriented around game physics and largely indifferent to game balance; you seem to be the opposite from what you write here. I find it highly disturbing that you'd force attacks on a friendly barbarian to auto-hit and auto-crit, implying extra vulnerability to friends, but would also deny Warcasting Polymorph against friends because they don't grant you that window of vulnerability, implying reduced vulnerability. I find it disturbingly inconsistent on physics grounds-- but you like the kind of game that results and you take it as a given that feats will lead to inconsistencies, so it doesn't bother you as long as RAW is being followed. Game play over simulationism.

Does that seem to you like the gist of the difference between our respective goals?

I actually would not agree with that representation of our positions. For me this comes down to what I would call game logic. I do enjoy looking at the game as a game. That's primarily the type of discussion I get into on this forum. I'm not particularly concerned with game balance, however. Unless I'm tinkering with the rules, I don't feel that I need to worry about preserving balance since I assume the designers have done a decent job on that front. That isn't why I wouldn't count striking an ally that doesn't defend him or herself as an attack. The reason why it isn't an attack is that the target is not defending itself. Obviously to me, you don't get the benefit of your AC if you are willingly accepting the blow. Why would an attack roll be required to hit?

I don't think this is inconsistent with my understanding of Warcaster in the slightest. Being able to cast Polymorph on your willing friend is hardly indicative of that friend's vulnerability. To the contrary, you are helping your friend to be less vulnerable to drowning. Resisting the spell, however, I would see as a hostile act, which is why you could cast Polymorph on an enemy using Warcaster, but not on a friend. How is this inconsistent? The two actions are resolved in similar ways, under my reading, depending on whether the target is friendly or hostile. Strike or cast Polymorph on a friend? No die roll required. Strike or cast Polymorph on an enemy? An attack roll or saving throw is made. Seems very consistent to me.

I actually think of myself as a simulationist. At least I enjoy a certain amount of simulationism. I think maybe we enjoy simulating different things. I like mechanics that simulate a fiction that has a certain consistency, and, at least for me, the DM, predictability. This is very much a type of newtonian physics that I am interested in having in my games. I accept that such mechanics are an abstraction from reality, so I don't concern myself with simulating reality. That would necessitate a complete redesign of the system in my opinion, and wouldn't result in a better more playable game. So I'm perfectly happy to let the rules as written be the game physics. Understanding the rules lets me know how the fictional world that I am simulating in my game actually works. If part of the rules, a feat or something, creates an exception that appears to break the physical laws that the main body of the rules seems to create, then I accept that as how the fictional world actually works. To draw an example from comic books, Superman's ability to fly seems to break the physical law of gravity to anyone who doesn't understand how it really works. Part of the fiction of Superman's world, however is that someone with his molecular composition actually can fly, there's no magic involved. That's, in a less dramatic way, how I see feats like Warcaster. They allow you to do things that no one else can do, but there are limitations because they still exist within the physics of the game. The limitation on the Warcaster feat is that it can only be used against enemies, which is consistent with opportunity attacks only working against enemies, as well as attacks only working against enemies. There is some circularity to this, I admit, because I believe that if you attack someone and they defend themselves then they are your enemy, but I think I've explained that position well enough already.