No opinion required, just read the rules carefully, then DM decides for their own game.
D&D 5E Warcaster, polearm master and learning to love the optimizing?
- Thread starter redrick
- Start date
No opinion required, just read the rules carefully, then DM decides for their own game.
transtemporal
Explorer
Permissions for multi-classing or feats aren't really an idea in DnD. A permission is an idea from the Fate system which is a logical narrative justification beyond just having mechanical access to the ability, e.g. "must belong to an appropriate airforce organisation" for the "Top Gun Pilot" stunt.
If you require that for your game, you need to let your players know and you have to apply it uniformly, i.e. you can't apply it to that one player because that's not cool. Personally, I would say anything goes but also reserve the right to require a permission for some feats or combinations of feats / classes, including the right to reject a permission. Just get the player to pitch the permission and work with them to refine it until you get something you can both agree on. Plus, you potentially get the players to do some worldbuilding themselves, which adds to the game and the players involvement.
Kikuras
First Post
It's my understanding that it's not really a matter of permissions. Nothing stops a player from taking any particular feat or two. The question is whether the feats work in concert, and considering that the RAW of the rules leaves some grey areas, it then falls on the player to beseech the DM for game-specific clarification, and of course in this case the player is trying to get the more favorable interpretation/ruling.
transtemporal
Explorer
But in this case, there is no grey area between warcaster and polearm master. Warcaster doesn't say "you can take an AoO with a spell, except with a reach weapon". In fact, it seems to specifically designed to work with a staff which is pretty much THE spellcaster weapon.
Apparently not because Mearls waded in with the nerfbat for no reason at all.
transtemporal
Explorer
The DM has already allowed mechanical permission for MC and Feats in his campaign so that's a moot point. I was referring to narrative permission.
Kikuras
First Post
War Caster specifically states your are NOT taking an AoO with a spell. What War Caster does is it takes the AoO you would have gotten (no matter if it's granted by Polearm Master, or whether it's triggered by a opponent moving away) and tosses that it out the window, and replaces it with a reaction spell. So the trigger happens, then a second trigger happens, then spell happens.
Edit: The grey area I was speaking of was whether or not the AoO granted by Polearm Master has reach or not. The entry on Reach has wording that COULD be interpreted in two ways. The conservative reading means it's not at 10', and the liberal reading says it's at 10'.
Last edited:
transtemporal
Explorer
Shiver me timbers, you're right! That's pretty straight forward then. Polearm Master doesn't work with Warcaster because Warcaster replaces the AoO and Polearm Master works on an AoO.
I'm not sure why the area you've pointed out is a grey area though, 3 of the 4 weapons mentioned in the feat have Reach but it doesn't say it grants Reach at all.
Kikuras
First Post
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.
Ahrimon
Bourbon and Dice
The (arguably broken) combo is between the three. Warcaster lets you replace your AoO with a spell. Polearm mastery triggers your AoO when the opponent is 10' away. Repelling blast let's you push the target back on a hit by 10' per blast that hits.
So, creature approaches, Polearm Mastery triggers the AoO, Warcaster let's you replace it with the cantrip, and repelling blast lets you push that target back 10+ feet. Effectively you can keep a single opponent away from you forever.
There are counters to this tactic though. The disengage action allows opponents to close without generating the AoO. The AoO from pole-lock can only be used once per round so multiple attackers will be able to close. And I'm sure there are more.
If the DM does allow it to work, I would like to suggest you use it against the PCs once or twice and see how they like it. Sometimes a taste of their own optimization can do wonders for a group.
So, creature approaches, Polearm Mastery triggers the AoO, Warcaster let's you replace it with the cantrip, and repelling blast lets you push that target back 10+ feet. Effectively you can keep a single opponent away from you forever.
There are counters to this tactic though. The disengage action allows opponents to close without generating the AoO. The AoO from pole-lock can only be used once per round so multiple attackers will be able to close. And I'm sure there are more.
If the DM does allow it to work, I would like to suggest you use it against the PCs once or twice and see how they like it. Sometimes a taste of their own optimization can do wonders for a group.
Similar Threads
