D&D 5E Vampiric Touch Opportunity Attack Ruling?

[MindxKiller]

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.

Yes you used arbitrary, incorrectly.

 

[MG.0]

Yes you used arbitrary, incorrectly.

Hardly.

 

[Lidgar]

I ran into this when playing PotA. The PC's were taking on the Necromancer Oreioth and he had cast this spell early in the battle. The cleric in the party had to leave his reach without taking the disengage action to go heal someone. I was about to have Oreioth use his reaction to make an OA using his hand, when I re-read the spell (it was the first time I had read the spell in 5e). Poor Oreioth then had to use his dagger instead.

 

[Nevvur]

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.

Would you then also rule that a person who casts Vampiric Touch can grapple a target with his enchanted hand and not have to make the attack roll at all, simply inflicting damage automatically every round until the target escapes the grapple?

 

[Khashir]

For the record, OP: if you want a solid ruling (and good arguments for it), you should really head over to http://rpg.stackexchange.com. Instead of being drowned in 6 pages of bickering and competing opinions on seemingly equal footing, you'll find a community that debates intelligently because they want to apply the rules accurately. However, make sure you take the tour of the site, they are ruthless with questions that don't fit the site (this one would fit perfectly though).

Here's one question that's not directly related to yours, but offers some general insights about War Caster and the site:

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/49170/can-high-level-eldritch-blast-be-used-with-war-caster

 

[Noctem]

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.

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...

 

[MG.0]

Would you then also rule that a person who casts Vampiric Touch can grapple a target with his enchanted hand and not have to make the attack roll at all, simply inflicting damage automatically every round until the target escapes the grapple?

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.

 

[Noctem]

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.

Using fluff to justify mechanical effects and/or changes to rules text is the wrong way to go about it, imo, in a discussion about how the rules work.

 

[MG.0]

Using fluff to justify mechanical effects and/or changes to rules text is the wrong way to go about it, imo, in a discussion about how the rules work.

That sounds like a rules lawyer approach, imho.

It's not fluff. It is applying real world knowledge and common sense to achieve verisimilitude in the game world. The rules are a means to achieve that, but they are not the final arbiters.

 

[Noctem]

That sounds like a rules lawyer approach, imho.

It's not fluff. It is applying real world knowledge and common sense to achieve verisimilitude in the game world. The rules are a means to achieve that, but they are not the final arbiters.

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.