The feat let's you make opportunity attacks when enemies enter your reach. RAI I would think that the opportunity attack has to be made with a polearm you a wielding, but RAW it don't think it actually says that.
Let's say you have the Polearm Master feat and the Warcaster feat. While wielding a glaive that gives you 10ft reach, an enemy enters your reach, you get an opportunity attack at 10ft from you, and War Caster let's you cast a spell as an opportunity attack. Here's the question: does that opportunity attack have to be with the glaive, or could you cast a spell instead triggered at 10ft?
I am a GM, and a player at our table asked this question for a character build, and I honestly didn't know what to answer. I hope you guys could help me clarify this, or at least give me your thoughts.
Looks like polearm master gants a new way to get an opportunity attack, and warcaster replaces any opportunity attack. So yes if a creature walks into range it looks like you could cast a spell with enough range.
This kind of reminds me of the Crossbow Expert feat, which removes disadvantage with ranged weapons against targets within 5 feet of you. The wording of it is such that it applies to all ranged attacks... not just crossbows, and not even just weapon attacks. I've seen some theoretical builds that included Crossbow Expert just to eliminate disadvantage and be able to use ranged spells at all time (the one I remember most was just a really over-focused Warlock build that doubled down on Eldritch Blast)
This kind of reminds me of the Crossbow Expert feat, which removes disadvantage with ranged weapons against targets within 5 feet of you. The wording of it is such that it applies to all ranged attacks... not just crossbows, and not even just weapon attacks. I've seen some theoretical builds that included Crossbow Expert just to eliminate disadvantage and be able to use ranged spells at all time (the one I remember most was just a really over-focused Warlock build that doubled down on Eldritch Blast)
Just to pick a nit, the removal of disadvantage is even better than that. Normally, you have disadvantage on a ranged attack when any hostile creature is within 5', whether or not that's your target. So even if you're attacking someone 30' away, if there's an enemy next to you metaphorically bumping your elbow, you'd still have disadvantage. So getting rid of that is VERY nice :)
This kind of reminds me of the Crossbow Expert feat, which removes disadvantage with ranged weapons against targets within 5 feet of you. The wording of it is such that it applies to all ranged attacks... not just crossbows, and not even just weapon attacks. I've seen some theoretical builds that included Crossbow Expert just to eliminate disadvantage and be able to use ranged spells at all time (the one I remember most was just a really over-focused Warlock build that doubled down on Eldritch Blast)
And the SAC has confirmed that it was an intentional choice to have the feat apply to all ranged attacks.
Noksa is exactly correct, the reaction attack granted by Polearm Master is an Opportunity Attack and so War Caster can be used to substitute a spell that targets the provoking creature.
Here are a few pitfalls to watch out for though:
1) The OA is provoked when a creature enters the reach of the Polearm Master weapon the character is wielding. So a spell like Shocking Grasp wouldn't work if your using a Reach weapon.
2) The spell used must target the provoking creature and must only be capable of targeting one creature. So a spell like Dominate Monster works, but Scorching Ray doesn't.
Edit: I am unsurprised by the intent is for the attack to be made by the weapon with the triggering reach. I started writing this much earlier and didn't see the posts about the developer's intent.
Sounds like you have Rules as Written and Rules as Intended, you just have to pick which you think will be fun for your group. You can also make a ruling and let them know you may need to adjust it.
If i was in your position and decided it was causing problems after a few sessions I'd give the player the opportunity to adjust their build based on any change of ruling since they asked ahead of time.
The way Polearm Master works is that instead of the creature having to leave the reach of your weapon, you can also make the opportunity attack when a creature enters the reach of your weapon as well (so you can opportunity attack when the creature moves to you, not just away from you).
The tricky part with the interaction with War Caster is that normally an opportunity attack is made with a weapon, which determines the reach that you are using, but War Caster doesn't actually care; its trigger is that a creature "provokes an opportunity attack from you"; so RAW yeah, you can cast a spell at 10 feet (or 15 as a Bugbear or whatever) if you want to. You could possibly argue that if you're not attacking with the weapon, then your reach is only 5 feet, but this only changes the distance, not the trigger.
Conceptually the problem is that War Caster is triggering off a special opportunity attack that's supposed to be because of you being extra good with a polearm, which doesn't make a lot of logical sense as the reach of the weapon has no bearing on your use of a spell. You could maybe justify it on the basis that the essential skill is being better at controlling a defensive "zone" around yourself, i.e- you may not be attacking with the polearm, but you're trained to react the moment something enters that 10 foot reach, and as a War Caster you're able to make that reaction a rapidly cast spell.
But yeah, Rules As Written you can do this, Rules As Intended you probably shouldn't, and Rules As Fun will depend upon whether you as the DM feel the player is abusing this combo or not, as being able to cast a spell just for approaching you, which you can then follow with a second spell in your own turn, is pretty powerful, even if you had to take two feats to get that ability. Not saying your player will abuse it, but it definitely could be abused if you don't have a conversation with them about allowing it or not.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
RAW, it works as long as you are wielding a relevant weapon in at least one hand, due to a lack of specificity in the wording of polearm master. RAI, probably not.
Raw I see no reason this wouldn't work, however IMO depends on the spell they want to cast.
First question: What do they need to cast the spell? How is the player holding a 2 handed heavy weapon in one hand, while also using a hand to make the semantic gestures and also another to use the casting focus / provide materials if they are required.
Unless your player has 3 hands, or the weapon is their focus (warlock pact weapon, druid's staff maybe, etc..) or they have a ruby of the war mage or similar item, I would guess they probably can't cast most (some spells they probably can if they only require V+S or V+M) of the spells they would want to as an opportunity attack this way anyway.
Raw I see no reason this wouldn't work, however IMO depends on the spell they want to cast.
First question: What do they need to cast the spell? How is the player holding a 2 handed heavy weapon in one hand, while also using a hand to make the semantic gestures and also another to use the casting focus / provide materials if they are required.
Unless your player has 3 hands, or the weapon is their focus (warlock pact weapon, druid's staff maybe, etc..) or they have a ruby of the war mage or similar item, I would guess they probably can't cast most (some spells they probably can if they only require V+S or V+M) of the spells they would want to as an opportunity attack this way anyway.
The are multiple ways to address spell components. Verbal isn't a worry and Somatic is handled by the War Caster feat. So the only problem is Material components.
The easiest is to use a Spear(or other one handed weapon that works with Polearm Master) and spell component pouch and your good to go as long as you keep a hand free.
Probably the best way is to be a Pact of the Blade Warlock with the Improved Pact Weapon invocation. That lets you use your weapon as an Arcane Focus. With this (or any other feature that lets you use a weapon as a spell casting focus) even two handed weapons are no problem.
Raw I see no reason this wouldn't work, however IMO depends on the spell they want to cast.
First question: What do they need to cast the spell? How is the player holding a 2 handed heavy weapon in one hand, while also using a hand to make the semantic gestures and also another to use the casting focus / provide materials if they are required.
Unless your player has 3 hands, or the weapon is their focus (warlock pact weapon, druid's staff maybe, etc..) or they have a ruby of the war mage or similar item, I would guess they probably can't cast most (some spells they probably can if they only require V+S or V+M) of the spells they would want to as an opportunity attack this way anyway.
The are multiple ways to address spell components. Verbal isn't a worry and Somatic is handled by the War Caster feat. So the only problem is Material components.
The easiest is to use a Spear(or other one handed weapon that works with Polearm Master) and spell component pouch and your good to go as long as you keep a hand free.
Probably the best way is to be a Pact of the Blade Warlock with the Improved Pact Weapon invocation. That lets you use your weapon as an Arcane Focus. With this (or any other feature that lets you use a weapon as a spell casting focus) even two handed weapons are no problem.
I personally would rule that if you're holding a 2 handed weapon in one hand, you can't use that hand to do somatic even with warcaster. Especially if the weapon has the heavy property as well. But I suppose that's technically not covered anywhere in the RAW.
Raw I see no reason this wouldn't work, however IMO depends on the spell they want to cast.
First question: What do they need to cast the spell? How is the player holding a 2 handed heavy weapon in one hand, while also using a hand to make the semantic gestures and also another to use the casting focus / provide materials if they are required.
You only need 2 hands for a 2 handed weapon when you are attacking with it according to the Two Handed Property, so narratively you can support the pole-arm either on a shoulder or braced in your armpit freeing up your second hand for spellcasting.
To answer your question about somatic gestures and focus, those are the same hand. Either a spell requires materials in which case you need your focus or pouch (and the somatic component is interacting with them), or it does not in which case it just uses the freed up hand.
Raw I see no reason this wouldn't work, however IMO depends on the spell they want to cast.
First question: What do they need to cast the spell? How is the player holding a 2 handed heavy weapon in one hand, while also using a hand to make the semantic gestures and also another to use the casting focus / provide materials if they are required.
You only need 2 hands for a 2 handed weapon when you are attacking with it according to the Two Handed Property, so narratively you can support the pole-arm either on a shoulder or braced in your armpit freeing up your second hand for spellcasting.
To answer your question about somatic gestures and focus, those are the same hand. Either a spell requires materials in which case you need your focus or pouch (and the somatic component is interacting with them), or it does not in which case it just uses the freed up hand.
If your weapon is the spell casting focus you can absolutely do both and I already said, the RAW allows it either way.
But personally if the weapon was not able to be used as a focus (Or if the spell requires components that cannot be replaced by a focus) I don't think you should be able to hold a heavy two handed weapon in one hand and still be able to move your hand enough to perform the somatics while the other fishes out the materials. Or you're faffing about holding your glaive in the same hand you're trying to touch your focus with / grab materials while your other hand makes the motions that doesn't make sense to me either.
I get what you're saying about how you could technically rest the weapon down, pull out a material with your other hand and then use that hand to do the fingers. But for me personally I feel like having a big weapon in one hand that's heavy and meant for two would be distracting at the least, and setting it down in a manner that wouldn't be would take longer than a reaction of time would allow.
To me the wording of Warcaster also implies this: 'weapons or a shield in one or both hands.' The weapons is plural which to me implies that it was intended for two single handed weapons and not larger two handed ones. That's just my interpretation of it though and others will take it other ways. Regardless the RAW is clear, there's nothing stopping you from casting a spell as an AOO with this feat combination, just I personally would have some extra questions depending on the specific components of the spell being cast.
As quoted from the PHB earlier if a spell requires both Somatic and Material components then both can be provided by the same hand.
So the example you give of using one hand to hold a glaive while performing Somatic components and the other hand supplies the Material components is not required. One hand would hold the weapon, and the other would supply both the Somatic and Material components.
Edit: This is what makes a spell component pouch so useful. You can access material components without needing to draw and hold a spell casting focus.
As quoted from the PHB earlier if a spell requires both Somatic and Material components then both can be provided by the same hand.
So the example you give of using one hand to hold a glaive while performing Somatic components and the other hand supplies the Material components is not required. One hand would hold the weapon, and the other would supply both the Somatic and Material components.
Edit: This is what makes a spell component pouch so useful. You can access material components without needing to draw and hold a spell casting focus.
I agree, the RAW lets you do it. There's no argument here about that, just gave my opinion on why I personally would not allow it for certain spells. Just because the RAW allows something doesn't mean you always have to.
Raw I see no reason this wouldn't work, however IMO depends on the spell they want to cast.
First question: What do they need to cast the spell? How is the player holding a 2 handed heavy weapon in one hand, while also using a hand to make the semantic gestures and also another to use the casting focus / provide materials if they are required.
You only need 2 hands for a 2 handed weapon when you are attacking with it according to the Two Handed Property, so narratively you can support the pole-arm either on a shoulder or braced in your armpit freeing up your second hand for spellcasting.
To answer your question about somatic gestures and focus, those are the same hand. Either a spell requires materials in which case you need your focus or pouch (and the somatic component is interacting with them), or it does not in which case it just uses the freed up hand.
If your weapon is the spell casting focus you can absolutely do both and I already said, the RAW allows it either way.
But personally if the weapon was not able to be used as a focus (Or if the spell requires components that cannot be replaced by a focus) I don't think you should be able to hold a heavy two handed weapon in one hand and still be able to move your hand enough to perform the somatics while the other fishes out the materials. Or you're faffing about holding your glaive in the same hand you're trying to touch your focus with / grab materials while your other hand makes the motions that doesn't make sense to me either.
I get what you're saying about how you could technically rest the weapon down, pull out a material with your other hand and then use that hand to do the fingers. But for me personally I feel like having a big weapon in one hand that's heavy and meant for two would be distracting at the least, and setting it down in a manner that wouldn't be would take longer than a reaction of time would allow.
To me the wording of Warcaster also implies this: 'weapons or a shield in one or both hands.' The weapons is plural which to me implies that it was intended for two single handed weapons and not larger two handed ones. That's just my interpretation of it though and others will take it other ways. Regardless the RAW is clear, there's nothing stopping you from casting a spell as an AOO with this feat combination, just I personally would have some extra questions depending on the specific components of the spell being cast.
I'm not discussing realism, I'm discussing the rules and giving a narrative option that fits the rules as written. As I quoted there is no fishing for materials separate from the somatic components, pulling out and using materials are the somatic component.
RAW it works, RAI we have evidence it wasn't supposed to(but no erata to change RAW). At your table you get to rule as is fun/logical for you(it sounds like a no go at any table you run and that is fine) :-D personally i wish i had this combo on a character so i could cast hold person as someone charges me and watch them get stuck in their tracks O:-)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The feat let's you make opportunity attacks when enemies enter your reach. RAI I would think that the opportunity attack has to be made with a polearm you a wielding, but RAW it don't think it actually says that.
Let's say you have the Polearm Master feat and the Warcaster feat. While wielding a glaive that gives you 10ft reach, an enemy enters your reach, you get an opportunity attack at 10ft from you, and War Caster let's you cast a spell as an opportunity attack. Here's the question: does that opportunity attack have to be with the glaive, or could you cast a spell instead triggered at 10ft?
I am a GM, and a player at our table asked this question for a character build, and I honestly didn't know what to answer. I hope you guys could help me clarify this, or at least give me your thoughts.
Thanks!
Looks like polearm master gants a new way to get an opportunity attack, and warcaster replaces any opportunity attack. So yes if a creature walks into range it looks like you could cast a spell with enough range.
RAW is might work, but based on tweets from Crawford and Mearls from the early days of 5E, the intent is no:
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/580139521498480640
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/511915558426521600
"The intent is that any OA triggered because you're wielding a polearm is then made with that polearm."
This kind of reminds me of the Crossbow Expert feat, which removes disadvantage with ranged weapons against targets within 5 feet of you. The wording of it is such that it applies to all ranged attacks... not just crossbows, and not even just weapon attacks. I've seen some theoretical builds that included Crossbow Expert just to eliminate disadvantage and be able to use ranged spells at all time (the one I remember most was just a really over-focused Warlock build that doubled down on Eldritch Blast)
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Just to pick a nit, the removal of disadvantage is even better than that. Normally, you have disadvantage on a ranged attack when any hostile creature is within 5', whether or not that's your target. So even if you're attacking someone 30' away, if there's an enemy next to you metaphorically bumping your elbow, you'd still have disadvantage. So getting rid of that is VERY nice :)
You can always tell the player that the intent as confirmed by the Devs is that the Opportunity Attack must be made with the polearm you're wielding.
And the SAC has confirmed that it was an intentional choice to have the feat apply to all ranged attacks.
Noksa is exactly correct, the reaction attack granted by Polearm Master is an Opportunity Attack and so War Caster can be used to substitute a spell that targets the provoking creature.
Here are a few pitfalls to watch out for though:
1) The OA is provoked when a creature enters the reach of the Polearm Master weapon the character is wielding. So a spell like Shocking Grasp wouldn't work if your using a Reach weapon.
2) The spell used must target the provoking creature and must only be capable of targeting one creature. So a spell like Dominate Monster works, but Scorching Ray doesn't.
Edit: I am unsurprised by the intent is for the attack to be made by the weapon with the triggering reach. I started writing this much earlier and didn't see the posts about the developer's intent.
Sounds like you have Rules as Written and Rules as Intended, you just have to pick which you think will be fun for your group. You can also make a ruling and let them know you may need to adjust it.
If i was in your position and decided it was causing problems after a few sessions I'd give the player the opportunity to adjust their build based on any change of ruling since they asked ahead of time.
The way Polearm Master works is that instead of the creature having to leave the reach of your weapon, you can also make the opportunity attack when a creature enters the reach of your weapon as well (so you can opportunity attack when the creature moves to you, not just away from you).
The tricky part with the interaction with War Caster is that normally an opportunity attack is made with a weapon, which determines the reach that you are using, but War Caster doesn't actually care; its trigger is that a creature "provokes an opportunity attack from you"; so RAW yeah, you can cast a spell at 10 feet (or 15 as a Bugbear or whatever) if you want to. You could possibly argue that if you're not attacking with the weapon, then your reach is only 5 feet, but this only changes the distance, not the trigger.
Conceptually the problem is that War Caster is triggering off a special opportunity attack that's supposed to be because of you being extra good with a polearm, which doesn't make a lot of logical sense as the reach of the weapon has no bearing on your use of a spell. You could maybe justify it on the basis that the essential skill is being better at controlling a defensive "zone" around yourself, i.e- you may not be attacking with the polearm, but you're trained to react the moment something enters that 10 foot reach, and as a War Caster you're able to make that reaction a rapidly cast spell.
But yeah, Rules As Written you can do this, Rules As Intended you probably shouldn't, and Rules As Fun will depend upon whether you as the DM feel the player is abusing this combo or not, as being able to cast a spell just for approaching you, which you can then follow with a second spell in your own turn, is pretty powerful, even if you had to take two feats to get that ability. Not saying your player will abuse it, but it definitely could be abused if you don't have a conversation with them about allowing it or not.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
RAW, it works as long as you are wielding a relevant weapon in at least one hand, due to a lack of specificity in the wording of polearm master. RAI, probably not.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Raw I see no reason this wouldn't work, however IMO depends on the spell they want to cast.
First question:
What do they need to cast the spell?
How is the player holding a 2 handed heavy weapon in one hand, while also using a hand to make the semantic gestures and also another to use the casting focus / provide materials if they are required.
Unless your player has 3 hands, or the weapon is their focus (warlock pact weapon, druid's staff maybe, etc..) or they have a ruby of the war mage or similar item, I would guess they probably can't cast most (some spells they probably can if they only require V+S or V+M) of the spells they would want to as an opportunity attack this way anyway.
The are multiple ways to address spell components. Verbal isn't a worry and Somatic is handled by the War Caster feat. So the only problem is Material components.
The easiest is to use a Spear(or other one handed weapon that works with Polearm Master) and spell component pouch and your good to go as long as you keep a hand free.
Probably the best way is to be a Pact of the Blade Warlock with the Improved Pact Weapon invocation. That lets you use your weapon as an Arcane Focus. With this (or any other feature that lets you use a weapon as a spell casting focus) even two handed weapons are no problem.
I personally would rule that if you're holding a 2 handed weapon in one hand, you can't use that hand to do somatic even with warcaster. Especially if the weapon has the heavy property as well. But I suppose that's technically not covered anywhere in the RAW.
You only need 2 hands for a 2 handed weapon when you are attacking with it according to the Two Handed Property, so narratively you can support the pole-arm either on a shoulder or braced in your armpit freeing up your second hand for spellcasting.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/equipment#WeaponProperties "Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it."
To answer your question about somatic gestures and focus, those are the same hand. Either a spell requires materials in which case you need your focus or pouch (and the somatic component is interacting with them), or it does not in which case it just uses the freed up hand.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Components "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
A good example of this would be, well, any bow. You have to let go with one hand to grab the next arrow, yet you don't drop the bow in the process.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If your weapon is the spell casting focus you can absolutely do both and I already said, the RAW allows it either way.
But personally if the weapon was not able to be used as a focus (Or if the spell requires components that cannot be replaced by a focus) I don't think you should be able to hold a heavy two handed weapon in one hand and still be able to move your hand enough to perform the somatics while the other fishes out the materials. Or you're faffing about holding your glaive in the same hand you're trying to touch your focus with / grab materials while your other hand makes the motions that doesn't make sense to me either.
I get what you're saying about how you could technically rest the weapon down, pull out a material with your other hand and then use that hand to do the fingers. But for me personally I feel like having a big weapon in one hand that's heavy and meant for two would be distracting at the least, and setting it down in a manner that wouldn't be would take longer than a reaction of time would allow.
To me the wording of Warcaster also implies this: 'weapons or a shield in one or both hands.' The weapons is plural which to me implies that it was intended for two single handed weapons and not larger two handed ones. That's just my interpretation of it though and others will take it other ways. Regardless the RAW is clear, there's nothing stopping you from casting a spell as an AOO with this feat combination, just I personally would have some extra questions depending on the specific components of the spell being cast.
As quoted from the PHB earlier if a spell requires both Somatic and Material components then both can be provided by the same hand.
So the example you give of using one hand to hold a glaive while performing Somatic components and the other hand supplies the Material components is not required. One hand would hold the weapon, and the other would supply both the Somatic and Material components.
Edit: This is what makes a spell component pouch so useful. You can access material components without needing to draw and hold a spell casting focus.
I agree, the RAW lets you do it. There's no argument here about that, just gave my opinion on why I personally would not allow it for certain spells.
Just because the RAW allows something doesn't mean you always have to.
I'm not discussing realism, I'm discussing the rules and giving a narrative option that fits the rules as written. As I quoted there is no fishing for materials separate from the somatic components, pulling out and using materials are the somatic component.
RAW it works, RAI we have evidence it wasn't supposed to(but no erata to change RAW). At your table you get to rule as is fun/logical for you(it sounds like a no go at any table you run and that is fine) :-D personally i wish i had this combo on a character so i could cast hold person as someone charges me and watch them get stuck in their tracks O:-)