D&D 5E Warcaster

[Fanaelialae]

Sorry if confusion.

I was talking about the ruling against spells with more than one potential target.

As Hemlock pointed out, the only ruling AFAIK is the ruling against Twin Spell. Which makes sense because Twin spell requires a second target for a spell that has one target, but Warcaster restricts you to only targeting the creature that provoked the OA. Warcaster and Twin Spell requirements are different. If you're aware of a different ruling, I'd be interested in reading it.

Specifically, my reply was aimed towards those saying "not allowing EB for no good reason is stupid".

There IS a reason. Feel free to houserule otherwise, but not because the reason isn't valid.

I just did a quick reread of the thread, and I didn't see anyone saying, "not allowing EB for no good reason is stupid".

That said, I did show above that even with the agonizing invocation, it's comparable to a bladelock using booming blade. Technically, using EB is significantly worse than BB since without Crossbow Expert all of the EB attacks are made with disadvantage. Of course, as I said before, if you don't allow BB then that changes the equation and you might not want to allow EB to work in conjunction with Warcaster. However, there's no strong balance reason to do so if a better option (BB) exists in the campaign.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Link to the Sage Advice in question? I remember a similar ruling for Twin Spell but not Warcaster.

Having re-read the War Caster feat and the Twinned Spell metamagic, I can now see there is a difference in their phrasing that suggests they might be handled differently.

My earlier comments were made thinking that "must target only that creature" in the War Caster feat said "targets only one creature" and thus would be handled in the same way as Twinned Spell.

 

[Arial Black]

Sorry if confusion.

I was talking about the ruling against spells with more than one potential target.

Still slightly confused here: what ruling?

If you're talking about the Twin Spell ruling, well, that's a Twin Spell ruling, not a Warcaster ruling or a general ruling.

If you think that the devs meant the Twin Spell ruling to be a general rule regarding 'targets only one creature', then I'll point out that the Twin Spell ruling is actually part of the errata document, and they had ample opportunity to change Warcaster if they had wanted to.

I don't think we can make an assumption that they made a mistake and meant to include Warcaster. I think we have to assume that the wrote what they intended to write, and chose to leave alone the words that they wanted to keep as they are.

 

[CapnZapp]

I responded to posts such as #3, #7 and #9 of this thread, assuming they are correct.

 

[Xeviat]

Warcaster and cantrip scaling is why I wish we would have gotten scaling dice for weapon attacks rather than multiple attacks. 1[W], 2[W] at 5th, 3[W] at 11th, and 4[W] at 17th. There would have been room for stuff like -1 W to do two attacks, so that your multi target damage would add up to more than single target, to help with averages. It would also keep OAs from sucking at higher levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

It would also keep OAs from sucking at higher levels.

I think the designers want OAs to play a small role in the game.

More importantly, that making many attacks is fun. And avoids all-or-nothing damage spikes. Two reasons I think each on its own is enough to justify their decision.

Feel free to houserule you can deal *all* your attacks as your OA reaction in your campaign, however!

 

[Xeviat]

I think the designers want OAs to play a small role in the game.

More importantly, that making many attacks is fun. And avoids all-or-nothing damage spikes. Two reasons I think each on its own is enough to justify their decision.

Feel free to houserule you can deal *all* your attacks as your OA reaction in your campaign, however!

Multiple attacks is fun. Multiple attacks also flattens out the weapon user's (except single weapon rogues') damage curve. That's good. A damage on miss effect could have done the same.

Now I do like that each of the classes attack a little differently. Fighters make more attacks. Paladins have bigger attacks. Rangers have ... Barbarians have bigger crits. Rogues have even bigger single attacks (or two with twfing). Monks have a pile of attacks (until the Fighter matches them). So that's pretty cool.

But this also means different classes have widely different strengths in their OAs. Rogues have huge OAs. Clerics have good OAs too. Paladins are almost as good, though better if they're willing to drop a smite (can they drop a smite during a Reaction?). Barbarians are good if they can get a crit, or they're raging. Fighters and Monks have weak OAs.

I'd rather not give a full attack on an OA. Maybe instead "Extra Attack" could also grant extra Reactions. What would the consequences of that be?

 

[CapnZapp]

Fighters and Monks have weak OAs...

...unless they invest in them.

Can a Monk do a Stunning Strike on a OA?

The fighter can take a feat that stops a foe in his tracks.

I think it's better to accept that Fighters and Monks have their strengths elsewhere, and not complicate the game.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Saw this on Twitter from Jeremy Crawford:

 

[Arial Black]

Saw this on Twitter from Jeremy Crawford:

View attachment 75969

Nice one, cheers!

Now that I know I can do it, I probably won't. The disadvantage will rarely be worth it, and I'm focussing on melee rather than eldritch blast archery so I won't be taking the feat that lets me avoid that disadvantage.

Thanks all.