D&D 5E Warcaster, polearm master and learning to love the optimizing?

[Eejit]

Well no, it DOES work with Polearm Master. Wielding the appropriate weapon, a creature enters the 'reach' and an AoO is triggered. War Caster then kicks in, and the player is given the option to replace the AoO with a reaction spell. The player chooses that option, and a spell is cast.

Mearls (it was him, right?) said the RAI was that the Polearm Master AoO was intended to work ONLY with the wielded weapon, however, the RAW doesn't even really suggest it, it just says AoO without specificity (a specificity that is commonly found in other wording throughout the book).

It's the logical conclusion of the War Caster feat. So long as there is an AoO, it can be replaced with a reaction spell, unless it states otherwise (and there is no RAW otherwise).



That's the grey area. Because the character, according to RAW isn't given reach, but rather the weapon is given reach, for the purposes of attacks. The feat references the character's reach, not the weapon's reach. The character still only has a reach of 5'. I would say that the RAI was that the AoO happens at 10', but I also wouldn't expect my DM to buy that, he might go by RAW.

It works with Polearm Master at 5', not 10'.

The Reach property effects how far you can attack with that weapon.
When you make a War Caster spell reaction it is not an AoO (it's instead of an AoO), so you aren't using your weapon to make an attack and thus Reach isn't part of the equation.

Both Rules as Written and Intended say the combo (10' distance spell reaction) doesn't work. DMs can obviously houserule otherwise but the default doesn't allow it.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Our players just reached level 6 and were announcing their level up decisions over the forum. Our F2/Warlock4 (newly minted 4), announced that he would be taking the War Caster feat. He explained that, combined with the polearm mastery feat, this allows him to cast spells as an opportunity attack against any creature that steps within 10' of him.

My immediate reaction to this was, "whoa now, that feels like a bit of a loophole. Would you do me a favor and give me an in-world, common sense reason why your polearm mastery would allow you to cast spells at creatures as they come within 10 feet of you?"

Disclosure at this point. I'm not an optimizer. I don't really get optimizing the way I don't really get mint-chocolate chip ice cream. My overall tendencies probably lean more towards banning multiclassing and banning feats, but I also appreciate that my tastes are not everyone's tastes, so I decided to leave everything in the PHB on the table. And the player running the F2/Wrlk4 is a valued member of our group and definitely somebody who loves optimizing. I mean, that dude could spend our whole session talking about the interactions of different feats, different actions, different spells, different class abilities. He also knows the text of the PHB front-to-back, and frequently steps in as a public defender on behalf of my poor monsters. He's good spirited about it, and, as somebody who doesn't have a whole lot of time to pore over the rulebooks, I'm happy to have a legal consultant in the group.

So our valued player responds, along the lines of paraphrasing the text of the two feats, reminding me that he spent two feats to get that combination, making a minimal narrative justification for the ability, and then finally, saying, "I built my character around this concept." That last line really put my hackles up.

So, here are my questions.

First of all, warcaster + polearm mastery loophole: is it actually gonna throw a lot of cheese on the table? Intentions or not, where does this stand in the whole Rules as Fun department?

But more importantly, what are some advices for a non-optimizer DM who wants to have a fun time in a group with an optimizer player? (Let me repeat, this player really is, in most respects, a perfectly delightful gentleman and I'm very happy to have him in my group.)

(My actual response elaborated on the player's narrative justification and then said, "So I'll allow it," but then also stated that, in the future, if he has any feat or feature combinations coming up in the future, he should please discuss them with me well in advance, so we can all be on the same page.)

Sorry, this is a really incoherent post.

If it causes a problem at the table, just change it. All feats are all optional after all. I also highly recommend no multiclassing in 5e. It simply isnt necessary, and ime just encourages a more undesirable level of optimising. Best of luck.

 

[Kikuras]

It works with Polearm Master at 5', not 10'.

The Reach property effects how far you can attack with that weapon.
When you make a War Caster spell reaction it is not an AoO (it's instead of an AoO), so you aren't using your weapon to make an attack and thus Reach isn't part of the equation.

Both Rules as Written and Intended say the combo (10' distance spell reaction) doesn't work. DMs can obviously houserule otherwise but the default doesn't allow it.

Reach it part of the equation to trigger the AoO. Once the AoO is triggered Polearm Master is replaced by War Caster at the will of the player. Reach triggers AoO > AoO is replaced with spell > spell happens. There are no restrictions within the wording of the War Caster feat which narrow the scope of the AoOs it can be applied to.

 

[transtemporal]

That's the grey area. Because the character, according to RAW isn't given reach, but rather the weapon is given reach, for the purposes of attacks. The feat references the character's reach, not the weapon's reach. The character still only has a reach of 5'. I would say that the RAI was that the AoO happens at 10', but I also wouldn't expect my DM to buy that, he might go by RAW.

The feat just says "reach" it doesn't say "character reach" and in any case "Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack." (PHB pp. 195) but the description for Reach says "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." (PHB pp. 147). So either your reach is either 5 or 10 with a reach weapon.

I'd allow the AoO within 5 but disallow it at 10 for another reason: the weapon only grants 10 reach when the pole-lock attacks with it and he's not attacking with the weapon, he's casting a spell. I guess if he's using the knockback its pretty much the same effect though.

 

[Eejit]

Reach it part of the equation to trigger the AoO. Once the AoO is triggered Polearm Master is replaced by War Caster at the will of the player. Reach triggers AoO > AoO is replaced with spell > spell happens. There are no restrictions within the wording of the War Caster feat which narrow the scope of the AoOs it can be applied to.

If you aren't attacking with the Polearm Reach does not apply, so those AoO circumstances don't trigger. Reach only applies to attacks made with Reach weapons.

 

[Kikuras]

The feat just says "reach" it doesn't say "character reach" and in any case "Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack." (PHB pp. 195) but the description for Reach says "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." (PHB pp. 147). So either your reach is either 5 or 10 with a reach weapon.

Yeah, sorry, I threw in my word. The reason I said 'character reach' is because for all intents and purposes, the character's reach is still 5' EXCEPT when attacking with a polearm. Because you're not attacking with a polearm on someone else's turn, the argument COULD (I'm not making that argument, just pointing jinky wording) be made that the feat only ever works at 5'.

I'd allow the AoO within 5 but disallow it at 10 for another reason: the weapon only grants 10 reach when the pole-lock attacks with it and he's not attacking with the weapon, he's casting a spell. I guess if he's using the knockback its pretty much the same effect though.

As a player, I'd accept that. Heck, when I first saw the Polearm Master feat, I would have gladly taken the AoO ability only at 5', and still would if the DM wanted it that way. The problem, however, is with the War Caster feat. As I have stated before, the RAW is that it doesn't matter where or why there's an AoO, the origins of the AoO are NOT in question, as long as there's an AoO, it can be replaced with a reaction spell.

 

[Eejit]

As I have stated before, the RAW is that it doesn't matter where or why there's an AoO, the origins of the AoO are NOT in question, as long as there's an AoO, it can be replaced with a reaction spell.

Nope, because if you're casting a spell then that AoO isn't able to be triggered (at 10') since Reach only applies to Reach weapon attacks.

 

[Kikuras]

If you aren't attacking with the Polearm Reach does not apply, so those AoO circumstances don't trigger. Reach only applies to attacks made with Reach weapons.

By your logic the AoO never occurs because you must be in the middle of your own attack action for the polearm to have reach, and thus also get the AoO, which might actually be the TRUE RAW here.

 

[Eejit]

By your logic the AoO never occurs because you must be in the middle of your own attack action for the polearm to have reach, and thus also get the AoO, which might actually be the TRUE RAW here.

No, that isn't a consequence of my logic. Reach specifies attacks, not the Attack action. Attacks of Opportunity are a type of attack, so Reach will of course apply if made with a weapon which has it.

 

[Kikuras]

No, that isn't a consequence of my logic. Reach specifies attacks, not the Attack action. Attacks of Opportunity are a type of attack, so Reach will of course apply if made with a weapon which has it.

I was mostly giving you a hard time, I obviously agree that that reach of the weapon allows you a reach AoO. But what you're incorrect about is denying the spell. I cannot stress this enough, IF the AoO can happen, it can be replaced. There is not a single rule to dispute that. There's logic to support it, there's even RAI to support it, but no RAW. Feats supersede standard rules, and the War Caster feat clearly says:

"When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an
opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction
to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making
an opportunity attack."

The AoO happens, then the spell replaces it. The spell is not triggered by the movement. The spell is triggered by the feat which is triggered by the AoO, which is triggered by the weapon, which is technically triggered by another feat. The only thing I stated incorrectly was that it didn't matter where the AoO was from. We can see here it requires movement by a hostile creature, but that still stands with my claims in earlier posts.