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

[Kikuras]

And warcaster makes it fairly clear to me that the spell is being channeled through your weapon or unarmed strike somehow, so it makes perfect sense that in whatever scenario you might be making an OA with a weapon, you can replace that with a spell. Effectively you ARE making the OA with the weapon - but it's hit and damage are replaced with the effect of casting a spell from a restricted list.

I wouldn't call it clear, but reading it again I see what you see. You're not dropping a hand off your weapon when you normally use this feat to cast a spell, i.e. you don't point your finger to cast magic missile, you point the tip of your sword and a spell comes out.

To me it's clear the the RaI on this particular combo of feats is "actually we didn't think about that which is why there is no intent clearly readable in the rules".

I agree entirely. With most RAI examples you'll see fudged or ambiguous text that leads to interpretation issues. With Polearm Master the presumed RAI is a complete statement that is omitted. Granted there's a certain logic to using the object which grants the status, but in so many other cases they too the time to double-back on the rules.

I'm far from advocating that the combo should proceed without oversight - but punishing players for being confident that they've read rules correctly seems hubristic, especially when the combo that is arrived at is so mediocre in effect and interesting in flavour.

Agreed.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Warcaster makes no mention of this. There is nothing in the text that ties it to a weapon.

Except for the fact that OAs normally use weapons.

And the section of the warcaster feat that lets you cast spells while you are wielding a weapon.

In my mind, the only bit of the feat that doesn't pertain to weapons is the section on concentration checks.

What IS this mechanism that means I can suddenly cast a spell on someone as a reaction, but ONLY if they are within the melee range of a weapon that I'm not wielding (assuming I'm waving a polearm about)? How is that making more sense than it being channeled through my weapon somehow? There's a gulf in verisimilitude there that my mind isn't really able to bridge.

You and I disagree on what the RAI is, and that's fair enough. My point is that if I read a rule one way, and you read a rule the other way, feeling like you have to lay the smackdown on my interpretation "in order to set a precedent" isn't being particularly constructive.

 

[DaveDash]

Except for the fact that OAs normally use weapons.

And the section of the warcaster feat that lets you cast spells while you are wielding a weapon.

In my mind, the only bit of the feat that doesn't pertain to weapons is the section on concentration checks.

What IS this mechanism that means I can suddenly cast a spell on someone as a reaction, but ONLY if they are within the melee range of a weapon that I'm not wielding (assuming I'm waving a polearm about)? How is that making more sense than it being channeled through my weapon somehow? There's a gulf in verisimilitude there that my mind isn't really able to bridge.

You and I disagree on what the RAI is, and that's fair enough. My point is that if I read a rule one way, and you read a rule the other way, feeling like you have to lay the smackdown on my interpretation "in order to set a precedent" isn't being particularly constructive.

Well in this case the description explicitly says "rather than making an opportunity attack". It's not even implied, it's quite explicit. So I think the argument based on fluff that you can do this is quite shakey at best.
Mechanically however it's very clear. You can do this.

Taken in the whole context of the situation, you have a player who likes to scour the book looking for mechanical juicy bits that fit well together at the potential expense of other players, the DM's game, and also what makes sense from a fluff perspective.
Mechanically you can cash Wish and get an large number of simulcarum's too, or summon pixies who can all polymoprh, etc, etc but I'd expect any DM to 'lay the smack down' on that kind of player thinking as well.

I'm a power gamer too, but do you know what I play in the games where I am a player? Bog standard Clerics. Why? Because that's the best fit for our group. I'd never roll into a game with this build or something like a SorLock when my DM is relatively new, and other players are no where near mechanically advanced.

 

[SirAntoine]

With both hands on his halberd/glaive/pike he's going to have a hard time using material components. Eldritch blast is going to be fine, but something like Hold Person would not. AoO on approach in exchange for being unable to cast a sizable portion of your spells is a fair trade in my mind. If he tries taking a hand off his weapon, then he's no longer wielding it, and loses his AoO (I'd let the player know this ahead of time).

He would have to free up a hand, certainly. But that would be simple. Magic is too powerful to combine with attacks of opportunity.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well in this case the description explicitly says "rather than making an opportunity attack". It's not even implied, it's quite explicit. So I think the argument based on fluff that you can do this is quite shakey at best.
Mechanically however it's very clear. You can do this.

Wait, your argument is that because the mechanics say you don't both deal weapon damage and cast a spell as your reaction, the fluff that the spell is channeled through your weapon is invalid? That's just a bizarre argument to make. It's like saying that because shocking grasp gives advantage vs metal armor that I can't fluff it as a handshake.

Taken in the whole context of the situation, you have a player who likes to scour the book looking for mechanical juicy bits that fit well together at the potential expense of other players, the DM's game, and also what makes sense from a fluff perspective.

And the best he's got is a combo that thematically works and is at best on a par with what a bog standard character does? Seems to me like there is no problem here.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Call me dense, but what fluff indicates that the spell is channeled through your weapon?

 

[neobolts]

My take from the Meals reply, and my general impression of feats as RAI in 5e is that the "specific beats general" approach is very narrow. Feats merely modify the base rule, and the intent was that they don't generally interact with each other. It feels like each feat's design process existed in a bubble. As such, feat synergies weren't accounted for in balancing them.

 

[Kikuras]

Call me dense, but what fluff indicates that the spell is channeled through your weapon?

Extrapolation. Polearm Master aside, and just looking at War Caster, spells such as Burning Hands (and Fire Bolt) would normally originate from the hands/fingers of the caster, but if the caster's hands are full (say sword and shield), then where does the spell originate? If nothing else, from the hands areas of of the caster, sure, but more thematically it stands to reason that such a spell at least COULD originate from the weapon being wielded.

However, upon glancing at Eldritch Blast, I would probably allow the beams of crackling energy to originate from the eyes, possibly mouth, of the character, as a flavor thing. Depending on the group, and the mood of the game, I might even allow Eldritch Blast to originate from William Wallace's OTHER place.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed some fluff somewhere.

1) But if you buy that extrapolation, (I do not) can the Spellcaster cast a touch spell (Shocking Grasp, say) at an opponent 10' away that provoked an AoO?
2) If you answer "yes" (by 'channeling the spell through her weapon') why can't she do so as a regular action? ie: "I have a Polearm, my reach is 10', I cast Shocking Grasp on that Orc 10' away".
2a) Does that not also mean, that even without Polearm Master, that Warcaster combined with any reach weapon, extends the reach of all touch spells? It seems to me that if that had been the intent, that would have warranted its own bullet point spelling out the benefit.
3) If you answer "no", Doesn't that conflict with the whole 'channeling' bit?

 

[DaveDash]

The point was that "It's perfectly reasonable that a player would assume polearm master and warcaster work together based on fluff! You're clearly channeling through your weapon, warcaster says so!".

Well no. Warcaster quite explicitly says otherwise. It says quite strongly that you cast a spell instead of making an attack (of opportunity), which makes the whole "fluff" argument that you're channeling EB through your weapon quite dubious.