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

[Khashir]

No, VT only allows you to "make the attack again on each of your turns as an action." So, two restrictions: it has to be your turn, and you have to use an action.

The only way to use it as reaction with War Caster is if you cast it for the first time (or use up another spell slot) when an enemy provokes an OA.

Spells that allow extra attacks on subsequent turns specify the action you can use to repeat them: look at Storm Sphere, Investiture of Flame (which allow repeating an attack using your Bonus Action), and compare them to Vampiric Touch (or Witch Bolt).

Your GM can always allow it, but RAW, it doesn't work.

 

[Jester David]

You honestly think the rules for opportunity attacks are more specific than the rules for one particulare spell?

It doesn't specify either way. I don't think it's more specific, but there's nothing that states otherwise. There's always an element of belief involved.
It's not as clear cut as an absolute right or wrong.

Vampiric touch is vague on how it applies to Opportunity Attacks, since you are still concentrating on the spell and, by its description, touching someone drains their life. That there's room for DM interpretation and narration.

Why not let a caster who also has the Extra Attack feature attack with Vampiric Touch twice per round then?

Doing 3d6 per attack? Well, that's doing 10 damage on average while a fighter with a greatsword would be doing 11. You are regaining hp but you have to be in melee and in risk of being squished. It's not broken or outright unreasonable.

So why not?

 

[Khashir]

Vampiric touch is vague on how it applies to Opportunity Attacks, since you are still concentrating on the spell and, by its description, touching someone drains their life. That there's room for DM interpretation and narration.

It's not vague on how it applies to OAs: if it doesn't state that you can repeat the attack as a Reaction, you can't. Read the examples in my post—spells that allow repeating their effects tell you which action you can use, and under what conditions. VT clearly says "on you turn" and "using an Action." Put differently, using Cast a Spell action to cast VT grants you a melee spell attack that does 3d6 damage, etc. Further, while you concentrate, you get to repeat that melee spell attack on your turn and using your action.

But again, GM can rule otherwise at home... This definitely won't fly in official play.

 

[Jester David]

It's not vague on how it applies to OAs: if it doesn't state that you can repeat the attack as a Reaction, you can't. Read the examples in my post—spells that allow repeating their effects tell you which action you can use, and under what conditions. VT clearly says "on you turn" and "using an Action."

Looking at other spells is going outside the text of that specific spell. It's a good way to make a ruling, but it's not authoritative.

Put differently, using Cast a Spell action to cast VT grants you a melee spell attack that does 3d6 damage, etc. Further, while you concentrate, you get to repeat that melee spell attack on your turn and using your action.

And what happens to that spell effect if you miss on your turn?

But again, GM can rule otherwise at home... This definitely won't fly in official play.

Organized Play is a vast minority of players. It's not the norm, why bring it up?
Besides... Adventurer's League isn't Pathfinder Society. The Guide to AL even says the DM is allowed to alter the text of the adventure.

If the DM says it'll fly, it'll fly.

 

[Khashir]

Looking at other spells is going outside the text of that specific spell. It's a good way to make a ruling, but it's not authoritative.


And what happens to that spell effect if you miss on your turn?

Well, no offence, but it's more grounded than what you're doing—pulling a ruling out of thin air . More importantly, I quoted two very concrete/specific restrictions from the spell's description, which go against your interpretation. These two things are the best we have (in this forum at least), short of tweeting Crawford.

Nothing happens if you miss: as long as you concentrate, you get to repeat it. Repeating the attack is not tied to hitting.

 

[MindxKiller]

It's honestly hilarious reading these comments, people see the "on your turn as an action" and just try to ignore it. By that logic I can ignore the bonus action portion of bigby's hand and use the clenched fist option as an attack of opportunity because it gives me a melee spell attack. Yeah no, spells don't work like that. They specifically call out what action is required to use the continuing effects of said spell if any. In Vampiric Touch's case, that is on your turn, and as an action. Homebrew whatever you like, but it's just that, homebrew.

 

[Noctem]

It's honestly hilarious reading these comments, people see the "on your turn as an action" and just try to ignore it. By that logic I can ignore the bonus action portion of bigby's hand and use the clenched fist option as an attack of opportunity because it gives me a melee spell attack. Yeah no, spells don't work like that. They specifically call out what action is required to use the continuing effects of said spell if any. In Vampiric Touch's case, that is on your turn, and as an action. Homebrew whatever you like, but it's just that, homebrew.

Agreed there's some obvious deliberate blinders being put on! JC's answer is very direct. You can only use a spell on an OA if you have the war caster feat. How is that not clear? That aside, the spell itself specifically states that it must be used as an ACTION on YOUR TURN. Readying an action states that you can cast the spell and unleash it as a reaction when a perceivable trigger occurs. None of those rules counteract the spells specific limitations. If an OA happens, if you don't have warcaster the only thing you can do is a melee attack. However, the OA rules are found under the Melee Attacks section which details that these attacks use weapons, are hand to hand combat, that monsters make melee attacks using claws teeth and the like and so on. So not only are the OA rules under the melee attack section it doesn't have anything to do with spells. No rule in the game state that you can use a spell for an Opportunity Attack EXCEPT War caster..

SO, back to the tweet from JC: If the question is about using any spell via an Opportunity attack the only possible answer he can give is WAR CASTER.

So no, his answer isn't incorrect. He didn't misunderstand what the question was. He gave the only possible way to use a spell on an Opportunity Attack. And by the way, It's getting really annoying when users dismiss dev input like it was done in thread and elsewhere. You have no grounds to claim a dev didn't understand a question when the answer goes against your position. JC has been designated to be the rules guy, he gives the official RAI at the very least for rules questions. Sorry for the rant but damn it's annoying!

 

[Khashir]

Agreed there's some obvious deliberate blinders being put on! JC's answer is very direct. You can only use a spell on an OA if you have the war caster feat. How is that not clear? That aside, the spell itself specifically states that it must be used as an ACTION on YOUR TURN. Readying an action states that you can cast the spell and unleash it as a reaction when a perceivable trigger occurs. None of those rules counteract the spells specific limitations. If an OA happens, if you don't have warcaster the only thing you can do is a melee attack. However, the OA rules are found under the Melee Attacks section which details that these attacks use weapons, are hand to hand combat, that monsters make melee attacks using claws teeth and the like and so on. So not only are the OA rules under the melee attack section it doesn't have anything to do with spells. No rule in the game state that you can use a spell for an Opportunity Attack EXCEPT War caster..

SO, back to the tweet from JC: If the question is about using any spell via an Opportunity attack the only possible answer he can give is WAR CASTER.

So no, his answer isn't incorrect. He didn't misunderstand what the question was. He gave the only possible way to use a spell on an Opportunity Attack. And by the way, It's getting really annoying when users dismiss dev input like it was done in thread and elsewhere. You have no grounds to claim a dev didn't understand a question when the answer goes against your position. JC has been designated to be the rules guy, he gives the official RAI at the very least for rules questions. Sorry for the rant but damn it's annoying!

But this is also incorrect: War Caster allows you to CAST a spell when an enemy triggers an OA—it doesn't allow you to repeat spell attacks granted by spells already cast. I already addressed this in my first answer: you could cast VT as a response to an OA if you cast it for the first time when the OA triggers, or you use another spell slot ("overriding" the previous one, due to concentration).

Read the feat again: "you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature," it says nothing about repeating attacks granted by spells previously cast. So, the intuition is not misguided, hence, the house-rule is not out of line, but RAW, the feat doesn't allow what you're aiming for.

 

[MG.0]

Nobody likes a rules lawyer.

Play it however it makes sense to you.

I like things to make sense in my worlds and suggesting that someone who has an active spell going on their hand can't reach out and hit someone because of some arbitrary --- yes I said arbitrary --- wording, is silly. Just like the people who claim you can swim in full plate just because the rules don't mention swiming other than to say it is difficult terrain.

 

[Khashir]

Nobody likes a rules lawyer.

Play it however it makes sense to you.

I like things to make sense in my worlds and suggesting that someone who has an active spell going on their hand can't reach out and hit someone because of some arbitrary --- yes I said arbitrary --- wording, is silly. Just like the people who claim you can swim in full plate just because the rules don't mention swiming other than to say it is difficult terrain.

LOL, two things: OP said he's looking for a "solid ruling," so, just addressing the OP. Second, no one is arguing it can't be house-ruled—whatever your GM allows is fine.