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

[Kikuras]

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?

A good catch. It strikes me that it's more an issue with War Caster than it is with Polearm Master. If we remove polearms from the equation, the issue is still there. Can a character with full hands, utilizing the War Caster feat, cast a touch spell on an opponent? If so, how? Interestingly there's not a whole lot to be read about Touch spells.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

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.

Which why I've been ruling feat benefits don't combine with other feats. Otherwise it's often a major incentive to find feat combos.

 

[pemerton]

Magic is too powerful to combine with attacks of opportunity.

The whole premise of this thread is a feat in the 5e PHB which permits exactly that.

 

[SirAntoine]

The whole premise of this thread is a feat in the 5e PHB which permits exactly that.

The thread is alright. I don't understand how you can object to someone discussing this. It's not like there is a right or wrong way to adjudicate it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

So how else would you write "don't roll to attack or deal weapon damage or apply secondary effects from the opportunity attack, instead check you satisfy targeting restrictions and component requirements of a spell and apply that spells effects" without it being quite so clumsy?

 

[pemerton]

It's not like there is a right or wrong way to adjudicate it.

If you're going to ban the Warcaster feat, though, on the grounds that allowing OAs with spells is too powerful, then you're not really addressing the question asked in the OP.

 

[SirAntoine]

If you're going to ban the Warcaster feat, though, on the grounds that allowing OAs with spells is too powerful, then you're not really addressing the question asked in the OP.

I didn't offer any tips for running the game for an optimizer, so let me see.

First, feel free to disallow anything at any time, even if it means changing your mind.
Second, be respectful to the player's style and reward his cleverness when you can. Don't ever set a tone that suggests optimizing is a bad or wrong way to play.
Third, give the optimizer some extra challenges and responsibilities, letting them play a slightly bigger role from time to time to reflect their elite skills.
Fourth, give out free action surges to players who went the extra mile for something they couldn't have.

 

[Eejit]

RAW it doesn't work.

Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it.

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.

So since you're instead casting a spell instead of making an OA you are no longer using that weapon to make an attack, therefore its Reach property will not apply.

It works with neither RAW nor RAI (according to Sage), it only works if you go by specific fluff.

 

[Uchawi]

I would wait for an official errata change, versus what anyone states as an opinion.

 

[DaveDash]

That is a very good point Eejit, and one I missed.