D&D 5E Vampiric Touch Opportunity Attack Ruling?

[TenkayCrit]

If I am already concentrating on Vampiric Touch and then an enemy moves out of range provoking an Opportunity Attack, can I make a melee spell attack against them?

Here's the scenario: group is fighting a band of orcs.

My turn: I cast Vampiric Touch and walk into the fray. I stop right next to a wounded orc.

Orc's turn. He attempts to flee, leaving my reach, thus provoking an opportunity attack. Can I touch him with my vampiric fingers that I'm already concentrating on or do I have to smack him with my quarterstaff? I do not have the warcaster feat.

I can't find a solid ruling on this anywhere. I know I can't cast a spell as a opportunity attack without warcaster, but I'm not casting a spell. I have already cast the spell, I just want to make a "melee spell attack." Does a "melee spell attack" follow the same rules as an "attack action" or does it follow the rules of a "cast a spell action?"

Edit: there's other spells, such as Shocking Grasp, that I know I can't use a "melee spell attack" as an opportunity attack, but that's because you cast the spell as you touch the target. How does this change if I don't have to cast the spell in order to get the spell effect?

Thanks!

 

[iserith]

If I am already concentrating on Vampiric Touch and then an enemy moves out of range provoking an Opportunity Attack, can I make a melee spell attack against them?

Here's the scenario: group is fighting a band of orcs.

My turn: I cast Vampiric Touch and walk into the fray. I stop right next to a wounded orc.

Orc's turn. He attempts to flee, leaving my reach, thus provoking an opportunity attack. Can I touch him with my vampiric fingers that I'm already concentrating on or do I have to smack him with my quarterstaff? I do not have the warcaster feat.

I can't find a solid ruling on this anywhere. I know I can't cast a spell as a opportunity attack without warcaster, but I'm not casting a spell. I have already cast the spell, I just want to make a "melee spell attack." Does a "melee spell attack" follow the same rules as an "attack action" or does it follow the rules of a "cast a spell action?"

Thanks!

Sure, you can do it. If anyone says you can't, just tell them I said it was cool then surely everything will be alright.

 

[RSIxidor]

This is how it would go by RAW though you would have to have Warcaster. Without Warcaster, you cannot cast spells when making OAs.

You cast Vampiric Touch (1st slot used) on your turn. You attack someone and start concentrating on VT
Something provkes an oppurtunity attack from you, you stop concentrating on VT, you cast VT (2nd slot used), you make the attack and start concentrating on VT

So, with Warcaster, it can be done but ends up costing you a slot. Even if you had the feat, you'd be better off using the OA for a cantrip spell attack if you have one or using a weapon as spending another slot seems like it would rarely be worth it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

RAW I'd say no. You make a melee spell attack as an action.

If it said as an action or reaction then you could. You could not use it with the Extra Attack feature either.

 

[TenkayCrit]

Why would I need to stop concentrating on VT just to cast VT again before I can touch them? The spell lasts 1 minute.

 

[BoldItalic]

I would say no, too. Because making a VT attack takes a whole action, even if you are doing it again after the initial casting.

Unless your DM thinks it's cool, in which case you can do it

 

[Rhivan]

I don't see why not, I mean your concentrating on it, so you are not recasting it just doing an attack. Granted it's with a spell but how I see it is the spell buffs your unarmed attack to do X and you just poke them.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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).

 

[Nevvur]

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).

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.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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.

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.