D&D 5E (2014) Vampiric Touch Opportunity Attack Ruling?

[john21wall]

Thanks a lot a lot of useful information

 

[Rhogar_Rarr]

Going with a strict by the book reading of the rules, it's totally okay to use a melee attack option granted by a spell you don't need to cast as part of the opportunity attack to use.

Under "Opportunity Attack" in the book, it says "To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature."

Doesn't say "melee weapon attack", so spell attacks aren't excluded (except in the case of needing to actually cast a spell right then to use the attack, such as shocking grasp would require).

Very well put. When I was initially considering the scenario, I was thinking you'd need warcaster to make the OA. However, I see you logic and agree with your ruling.

 

[pdegan2814]

Except the spell description reads "Until the spell ends, you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action" -- not someone else's turn, and not as a reaction.

I'm not disputing that opportunity attack allows you to make melee spell attacks. Creatures like the spectre and will o' wisp have only melee spell attacks, and wouldn't be allowed to make opportunity attacks at all if it weren't so. However, I interpret the spell description to mean that Vampiric Touch doesn't grant you a new type of melee attack, it grants you a new type of action.

This is where I'd probably come down if I was the DM. The spell's specific wording specifically restricts the follow-up actions to your subsequent turns. Otherwise you could theoretically be applying the effect two times every round, and that comes off as broken to me.

 

[iserith]

This is where I'd probably come down if I was the DM. The spell's specific wording specifically restricts the follow-up actions to your subsequent turns. Otherwise you could theoretically be applying the effect two times every round, and that comes off as broken to me.

Only if the DM has a monster provoke an OA, which he or she doesn't have to do.

 

[Nevvur]

That logic would seem as though if applied to attacking with a weapon, it would equally prevent the weapon being used for opportunity attacks.

And it seems like putting general and specific in the wrong order, since how the spell functions as an action on your turn to make an attack is a general rule/situation while getting an opportunity attack with the spell active is a specific rule/situation.

If you applied that logic to weapons, you would be wrong. They are "used to attack a target" (p.146 phb) and that description suffices to direct you to the rules for attacks, be they normal or opportunity. The spell description for Vampiric Touch is a specific rule that tells you that "you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action."

An OA is a reaction, and a reaction is not an action. It's a "special action" (p. 190). It's roughly the same reason you don't get OAs with Mordenkainen's Sword and Spiritual Weapon, which require bonus actions to use.

This is where I'd probably come down if I was the DM. The spell's specific wording specifically restricts the follow-up actions to your subsequent turns. Otherwise you could theoretically be applying the effect two times every round, and that comes off as broken to me.

It's not especially broken, and far from overpowered. Even allowing for Vampiric Touch to hit on OAs, there are far better uses of a 3rd level slot than hoping for the occasional OA.

It's just not how I interpret the rules. I certainly don't begrudge any DM who prefers to interpret the spell otherwise.

 

[dmnqwk]

If it makes sense, do it.

5th edition is designed for players and DMs who wish to have fun and not be constricted by RAW nonsense, so I'd still limit you to the power of 1 Vampiric touch a turn I would most certainly allow you to reactively touch someone moving out of melee range and let you touch as a reaction. Other DMs are perfectly justified to do something different, but don't let someone arguing "RAW" rubbish dictate your actions, that's a throwback to previous editions and currently risking making the game bad.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you applied that logic to weapons, you would be wrong. They are "used to attack a target" (p.146 phb) and that description suffices to direct you to the rules for attacks, be they normal or opportunity. The spell description for Vampiric Touch is a specific rule that tells you that "you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action."

An OA is a reaction, and a reaction is not an action. It's a "special action" (p. 190). It's roughly the same reason you don't get OAs with Mordenkainen's Sword and Spiritual Weapon, which require bonus actions to use.

I'm not seeing anything on page 146 or 190 that actually says that an attack you can make as an action because of a spell you are concentrating on doesn't satisfy the "one melee attack" condition of the opportunity attack rules, since page 146 states things about weapons that really have nothing to do with opportunity attacks directly, and page 190 only says that some situations allow you to take a reaction and that the most common kind of reaction is an opportunity attack.

Both the spell, and a weapon, have their own specific actions that are generally used (the Cast a Spell and Attack actions, respectively) - and then there is the specific circumstance of an opportunity attack which says "melee attack" not the more specific "melee weapon attack", so it seems to treat both weapon and spell attacks equally.

What stops Mordenkainen's sword and spiritual weapon from being usable with an opportunity attack seems only to be that they are not typical in a position from which to make an attack against someone leaving your reach, which is what provokes the opportunity attack, and do not actually have a reach of their own given the wording of the spells not providing them with such.

 

[Nevvur]

AaronOfBarbaria,

Thank you for clarifying your position, and I see where you're coming from better now. However, it seems like you're not acknowledging the two conditions written directly into the spell that I've highlighted twice now - on your turn, as an action.

I found this, and evincing a trend, Crawford refuses to directly answer a question, but it seems he is suggesting each attack made with Vampiric Touch is the "Cast a Spell" action.
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford re: OA w/ spells - if i am using vampiric touch or similar, can I use it or the OA? if i am already concentrating on it

Jeremy Crawford [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
[MENTION=93625]CJ[/MENTION]atud You need a feature like the War Caster feat to cast a spell in place of an opportunity attack.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

However, it seems like you're not acknowledging the two conditions written directly into the spell that I've highlighted twice now - on your turn, as an action.

I have acknowledged those conditions, and have expressed that they appear to me to be the very conditions written directly into the rules to allow you to attack with a weapon: on your turn, as an action (the Attack action, specifically).

I found this, and evincing a trend, Crawford refuses to directly answer a question, but it seems he is suggesting each attack made with Vampiric Touch is the "Cast a Spell" action.

[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford re: OA w/ spells - if i am using vampiric touch or similar, can I use it or the OA? if i am already concentrating on it

Jeremy Crawford [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
[MENTION=93625]CJ[/MENTION]atud You need a feature like the War Caster feat to cast a spell in place of an opportunity attack.

I agree with [MENTION=6788732]cbwjm[/MENTION] that it looks like Mr. Crawford didn't quite understand the question. Well, that, or he was using his answer the way I have seen him use other answers; to point out where the limitation is.

The only thing for it is someone to ask Mr. Crawford a better worded iteration of the same question to see if a more clear answer is given, since you seem to interpret this Q&A as saying you have to have War Caster to use vampiric touch for an opportunity attack, and I interpret it as clarification that War Caster only enters the equation if you are trying to use a spell during an opportunity attack and haven't already cast it prior to that instant.

 

[Nevvur]

Ya, I tweeted to JC earlier with a clearer question, but a reply might be a ways away on account of the holidays.