D&D 5E Vampiric Touch Opportunity Attack Ruling?

[MG.0]

You should also stop using the term rules lawyer as a derogatory term for people who understand and care about the rules. It alienates the people you try to talk with and makes you out to be something you might not be.

I didn't call anyone a rules lawyer, I said that sounds like a rules lawyer approach. It's no different than your implication that what I am doing is mere "fluff". Understanding the rules doesn't make one a rules lawyer. Trying to inisist that the wording of the rules must have a particular meaning in every conceivable scenario does. The rules are by their nature limited. They always will be. My aforementioned example of swimming is just one example.

 

[Khashir]

I didn't say you could repeat it either, I very clearly stated that it says on your turn and using an action. So no you can't repeat it on an OA and JC's answer is still good, like I said in the post you quoted. The spell text doesn't change just because you ready it or you use it as an OA via war caster. Like I said: He gave the only possible way to use a spell via an Opportunity Attack.

I'm not sure why you quoted me...

Sorry, friend, there was a misunderstanding—Crawford's reply was buried in the middle of the thread, whereas Jester Canuck's posts were more recent (so, I thought you were referring to his comments).

 

[Noctem]

Sorry, friend, there was a misunderstanding—Crawford's reply was buried in the middle of the thread, whereas Jester Canuck's posts were more recent (so, I thought you were referring to his comments).

no worries

 

[Noctem]

I didn't call anyone a rules lawyer, I said that sounds like a rules lawyer approach. It's no different than your implication that what I am doing is mere "fluff". Understanding the rules doesn't make one a rules lawyer. Trying to inisist that the wording of the rules must have a particular meaning in every conceivable scenario does. The rules are by their nature limited. They always will be. My aforementioned example of swimming is just one example.

I didn't say you were calling someone a rules lawyer, I said that you're using the term in a derogatory way and you should stop. Earlier you said nobody likes a rules lawyer in response to someone else. Now you're saying that I'm using a rules lawyer approach. Again, I think you should just stop using the term altogether since it doesn't serve anyone to use it in a derogatory way like you're doing to dismiss the statements of other people.

And there's a big difference between saying rules lawyer the way you are and pointing out that holding away someone's fist in a grapple is fluff. One doesn't help the conversation and the other is the correct term to use for something which is not part of the rules. Holding back a fist in a grapple is not in the rules. That's fluff. You're using fluff to justify making changes to how the rules work. Considering the OP wanted solid rules as a response and the way you're labeling the people trying to give the OP what he wants, I don't think I'm off the mark in general here.

You're also now shifting the goalposts, no one here has stated that what they've said must be true in every scenario conceivable. So even your custom definition of what a rules lawyer is which you just explained doesn't even apply to the people in this discussion.

 

[Nevvur]

Not at all. It is pretty easy to picture a caster having grappled someone (perhaps with one arm around the neck) while the grappled person still has enough range of movement to hold the grappler's magic hand at bay. After all, grappled opponents can still hit people with swords and such; they aren't helpless. Grappling only restrains movement, not attack and defense.

That's not the situation I described. The caster is grappling using the enchanted hand, it's already making contact and cannot be held at bay.

In any case, fluff does not make the rules, but you can use the rules to make fluff. I recall a discussion on the WotC forums about the precision aiming of fireball into a crowd vs. the fluff of it being a streak that has a very high likelihood of impacting someone before reaching a point in the middle of the crowd. You can invent house rules to make the fluff relevant (e.g. impose a chance of early detonation), or you can invent fluff to reconcile the RAW (the streak flows around obstacles until it reaches the visible point).

In the case of Vampiric Touch, you can invent a house rule that the mere touch of the shadow-wreathed hand suffices to cause the effect, allowing for the effect on an OA, or you can invent fluff to respect the "on your turn" and "as an action" line, for instance, by saying it isn't merely the touch, but the spellcaster focusing the magical energy and creating a mystical connection with the target which allows for the transfer of life essence, and that this cannot happen instantaneously (as with a reaction).

 

[MG.0]

That's not the situation I described. The caster is grappling using the enchanted hand, it's already making contact and cannot be held at bay.

Nope, now you are inventing fluff to justify your decision. Nowehere is it said or even implied that grappling means contact between a specific hand and the grappled target. That is something you are deciding all on your own. Since the rules don't imply it, and it is very easy to conceive of a real life scenario where it isn't true...who's inventing stuff here? Not me. I am not changing the rules - Where does it say vampiric touch should automatically affect grappled opponents?

 

[MG.0]

I didn't say you were calling someone a rules lawyer, I said that you're using the term in a derogatory way and you should stop. Earlier you said nobody likes a rules lawyer in response to someone else.

No, that reply was directed at the OP as encouragement to let his decisions reach beyond the mere text of the rules. Yes, he said he hadn't found a solid ruling. My advice was that one isn't needed. Sure it wasn't directly what he asked for, but often people ask questions from a certain perspective and sometimes those perspectives limit the possible answers in ways that needn't be true.

Now you're saying that I'm using a rules lawyer approach. Again, I think you should just stop using the term altogether since it doesn't serve anyone to use it in a derogatory way like you're doing to dismiss the statements of other people.

Apologies if you took it to be a personal attack. It wasn't meant as such.

And there's a big difference between saying rules lawyer the way you are and pointing out that holding away someone's fist in a grapple is fluff. One doesn't help the conversation and the other is the correct term to use for something which is not part of the rules.

I think we have different definitions of fluff. To me fluff is whether or not the caster's magic missles are blue or green and whether or not the barbarian's axe has a skull affixed to the end. In world justification for mechanical behavior is not fluff. It is an extension to the rules, because they can never cover everything.

Holding back a fist in a grapple is not in the rules. That's fluff. You're using fluff to justify making changes to how the rules work.

No, I'm using a common sense interpretation of grappling to imply the rules are justified in this case - namely that a caster with vampiric touch wouldn't automatically hit his grappled opponent. I'm not changing the rules at all.

Considering the OP wanted solid rules as a response and the way you're labeling the people trying to give the OP what he wants, I don't think I'm off the mark in general here.

I'm not labeling people. I merely suggested an alternative to what he was looking for. Others in the thread have implied doing so indicates a lack of understanding or deliberate ignoring of the rules. That is not the case.

Even if we play the rule "word game", which I rarely do because as I've said before the rules are far more arbitrary than most people seem comfortable admitting, I still wouldn't agree.

Let's look:
The vampiric touch spell lets you make subsequent melee spell attacks on your turn as an action. The spell grants you those attacks as an action as opposed to, say, a bonus action. The words "on your turn" aren't meant as a restriction anymore than on page 192 of the PHB where it says under the section on Actions In Combat "When you take your action on your turn...". Opportunity attacks allow melee attacks in response to a target moving away. The spell grants you a melee attack, therefore the spell can be used for an opportunity attack.

 

[Nevvur]

Grappling uses "at least one free hand" and "you try to seize the target." The hand the character uses to grapple is a decision a player makes at the time he makes the grapple, it's not some Schroedinger's Cat where the hand used is unknown until it interacts with some other rule involving the use of hands. You can ignore the narration of which hand is used in many cases, but it becomes especially relevant if the character is already holding something (a torch, a weapon, etc). If a player decides he wants to specifically use his Vampiric Touch hand to grapple, he can do so. If he's holding onto his arcane focus, he doesn't have two free hands to leave vague which hand is used to grapple. That's the situation I was describing, and by your invocation of the fluff, that hand ought to cause the spell's effect.

Besides, what would you do with a magic user who had only one arm, casts Vampiric Touch, and attempts to grapple?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Grappling uses "at least one free hand" and "you try to seize the target." The hand the character uses to grapple is a decision a player makes at the time he makes the grapple, it's not some Schroedinger's Cat where the hand used is unknown until it interacts with some other rule involving the use of hands. You can ignore the narration of which hand is used in many cases, but it becomes especially relevant if the character is already holding something (a torch, a weapon, etc). If a player decides he wants to specifically use his Vampiric Touch hand to grapple, he can do so. If he's holding onto his arcane focus, he doesn't have two free hands to leave vague which hand is used to grapple. That's the situation I was describing, and by your invocation of the fluff, that hand ought to cause the spell's effect.

Besides, what would you do with a magic user who had only one arm, casts Vampiric Touch, and attempts to grapple?

Does the hand holding the magic of the spell count as a free hand? Things to think on.

 

[Noctem]

well to be clear the magic user has to ready the spell and hold it and then grapple. However I would say that the magic user would have to pick if he wants to keep concentrating on the spell, use the spell on the target or grapple it. I don't think the intended game design is to do all 3 at the same time, with the same hand.