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

[Kikuras]

Specific Beats General, PHB 7.

If we're going down this route please provide reference, book and page which says determining how to use a Reaction is a multi-step logic-free process.

The rule you just referenced actually helps to prove my point. The 'specific' in this case is the feat War Caster, and the 'general' is polearms, reach, AoO. War Caster breaks the 'general' rules in a very 'specific' way, as described in the War Caster feat.

I would gladly detail a line-by line referencing of the rules that apply, but I'm on my way out the door and you'd reject them anyway. Seriously though, I'm not just our here to pull your leg or troll, you might want to ask around with some friends about the whole Specific Beats General thing because it doesn't mean what you're saying it means.

 

[Eejit]

The rule you just referenced actually helps to prove my point. The 'specific' in this case is the feat War Caster, and the 'general' is polearms, reach, AoO. War Caster breaks the 'general' rules in a very 'specific' way, as described in the War Caster feat.

War Caster is slightly specific, adding a new way to use your reaction AoO. Reach/PM interaction is much more specific, working with a handful of weapons and requiring a feat.

 

[Kikuras]

War Caster is slightly specific, adding a new way to use your reaction AoO. Reach/PM interaction is much more specific, working with a handful of weapons and requiring a feat.

Seriously, go ask some people who you really like, and who you really respect if what you just wrote is what they meant by 'Specific Beats General' (as well as the illustrating text). I'm not a reliable source in your eyes, all I can do is encourage you to run it by a source who you do feel is reliable. If you walk away from the conversation still feeling that you are fully justified in your interpretation of that rule, and it's intent, by all means just say so, and I will no longer post on this thread about it. And if you lie just to shut me up... that's on you, and I'll never know... but you will.

 

[Gecko85]

I haven't been following this thread, so haven't read all 13+ pages. I did read the OP, and here's how *I* would rule at *my* table (YMMV):

* The RAW say (for War Caster) that if a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack, you can use your reaction to cast a spell rather than making an OA.

* The RAW say (for Polearm Master) that if wielding a polearm, creatures provoke an OA when they *enter* your reach, not just when leaving your reach per the normal rules.

* So, RAW, War Caster would allow the player to cast a spell instead of making an OA, since the creature's movement provoked an OA (granted by Polearm Master).

* I would have no issue with a DM deciding to allow it to work that way, since according to RAW, it should be allowed.

* But here's where I'd change it for *my* table: I would house rule that since Polearm Master is modifying the OA rules specifically *because* the character is an expert at polearms (in other words, the only reason the OA is provoked by a creature entering reach is because the character is so good at polearms), then the OA must be taken with the polearm, and War Caster's exception doesn't apply. To put it another way, I would only allow the War Caster rule to apply to normal OAs, not those granted by a weapon-specific feat.

I don't think either way is right or wrong, it can be ruled either way.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't think either way is right or wrong, it can be ruled either way.

Yeah, I think the only reason this argument is proceeding is that there's at least one person who thinks that taking these feats and expecting them to work together is some sort of heinous crime against gaming. Its 'obvious' that they don't work together and therefore its 'obvious' that whomever takes the combination is trying to wreck the game somehow and needs to be punished.