D&D 5E Split enchantment and Warcaster AOOs

[ECMO3]

Question on an Enchantment Wizard with Warcaster Feat using an enchantment spell (let's say Hold Person). Can he use split enchantment and target a second bad guy.

Relevant rules
Attack of Opportunity:
You can make an opportunity Attach when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature.

Warcaster:
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.

Split Enchantment:
Starting at 10th level, when you cast an enchantment spell of 1st level or higher that targets only one creature, you can have it target a second creature.

In terms of specific vs general what is more specific - Warcaster or Split enchantment?

I'm really not sure about this. If you put this in the order things happen - Movement causes an AOO, Warcaster lets you cast a spell on one creature, Split Enchantment lets you target a second since you cast a spell that targeted only one creature.

 

[Clint_L]

So, just reading RAW, I think you could split it. Warcaster specifies that your reaction spell must target only one creature, but Split Enchantment accounts for that, specifying that it works on spells that target only one creature.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would rule against Split Enchantment (and twinned spell). Warcaster is very specific: "must target only that creature."

Warcaster doesn't make the spell target one creature, it makes it target a specific creature. Ergo, any additional targets must still be the creature who provoked the attack.

 

[Simonb1]

Hold Person would only work as a 2nd spell.
This is the only level where it affects only one target.

 

[ECMO3]

Hold Person would only work as a 2nd spell.
This is the only level where it affects only one target.

Yeah, but hold person cast by an enchantment Wizard at 2nd level affects 2 targets.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Warcaster doesn't say that the spell you cast must be unable to target more than 1 creature, but that the triggering creature is the only eligible target.

So even if the spell you cast would generally be able to target multiple creatures, if you cast it with Warcaster you can only target the specific creature that triggered the opportunity attack.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've been thinking about this, and there is a situation were I would allow it. It's not strictly RAW, but when a number of similar monsters share an initiative count I often move them together then do actions together (or visa versa). Thus, it is possible for more than one creature to be eligible for an attack of opportunity at the same time.

The other work round I would allow are spells like Ice Knife, which only have one target, but can affect additional targets with a burst effect.

 

[Horwath]

since we are expanding what warcaster could do:


DM: monster provokes AoO

Player(with warcaster): Cast fireball with my melee attack

DM: You and that whole party are in AoE of fireball

Player:

 

[MarkB]

since we are expanding what warcaster could do:


DM: monster provokes AoO

Player(with warcaster): Cast fireball with my melee attack

DM: You and that whole party are in AoE of fireball

Player:
View attachment 276339

Player: Did I mention I'm an Evoker?

 

[ECMO3]

Warcaster doesn't say that the spell you cast must be unable to target more than 1 creature, but that the triggering creature is the only eligible target.

So even if the spell you cast would generally be able to target multiple creatures, if you cast it with Warcaster you can only target the specific creature that triggered the opportunity attack.

Yes but split enchantment uses similar language. It states when you "targets only one creature" (the one creature you can target with an AOO from Warcaster) you can target a second creature.

So if warcaster lets me cast a spell that targets "only that one creature" and Split invocation triggers any time I "target only one creature" then it would trigger on the Warcaster AOO.

This depends entirely on whether you consider these happen sequentially or not.

 

[billd91]

Yes but split enchantment uses similar language. It states when you "targets only one creature" (the one creature you can target with an AOO from Warcaster) you can target a second creature.

So if warcaster lets me cast a spell that targets "only that one creature" and Split invocation triggers any time I "target only one creature" then it would trigger on the Warcaster AOO.

This depends entirely on whether you consider these happen sequentially or not.

The language may be similar... to a point. The issue here is warcaster isn't about targeting one creature, per se, it's about targeting THAT creature - the one who provoked the AoO. If you were to allow a split enchantment to work in this case, you're able to target a creature with your AoO that didn't do anything to provoke it. Considering warcaster's specific provision about targeting just the creature that provoked the AoO, going beyond that provision may be giving that feat an unanticipated degree of power.
So, as far as rulings go, a DM might want to think about that one with some caution.

 

[James Gasik]

My opinion on this has actually done a 180 since I started playing 5e: I actually considered, for my own games, not being super strict about Warcaster and spells with multiple targets, as long as the offender was a target. But then I started thinking about the old "bag of rats" scenario, and realized that what Warcaster is doing is really messed up, allowing you to turn a spell with a casting time of one action into a reaction (effectively).

Considering what a Sorcerer needs to do to turn a one action cast into a bonus action (which still limits them to casting a cantrip with their action), this is powerful. And letting people throw around multi-target spells off turn as a reaction (and let's not forget what you need to do to ready a spell in the first place!) would be insane. The Feat really should be limited to casting cantrips, not leveled spells.

I'm not going to nerf it, mind you. Feats should be strong, given the opportunity cost. But no way in heck am I going to let someone make it better!