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:-)
I've let hold person work with this at my table, it's just the supplying of some material components I take issue with in some cases (Where the weapon isn't a focus/some other method of negating the materials). I'm struggling to think of too many RAW spells that this would even affect for me, but I do check if my players ask.
I think Banishment is probably the best example I can come up with right now for why I do this personally on a spell by spell basis. The material component is very specific (an item distasteful to the target) and if you can't replace it with a focus, I would imagine your reaction time would be over before you could think about what item to even use as the material for that, let alone sort out freeing up a hand while not dropping your glaive, pulling it out and then doing the required hand gesture.
They're (my players) more upset they can't bladetrip with it than anything else though I think.
I just don't want the OP to feel like because it is ok by RAW that means they have to allow it.
Technically you can often get around the having a free hand thing by dropping your weapon and picking it up at the start of your next turn as your free object interaction as well, but I hate encouraging that kind of messing about and wouldn't allow that at my table either.
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.
@Rick___Deckard Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?
@mikemearls No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack
@henryhiggins47 if I have the war caster feat and a reach weapon can I use a spell instead of the weapon if they move to 15 ft?
@JeremyECrawford The intent is that any OA triggered because you're wielding a polearm is then made with that polearm
Jeremy’s tweets are just his personal opinion. They are not and never have been RAW. There was even a statement made by WoTC confirming that they should never be taken as RAW.
All of your answers have been great! Thank you all so much.
To those of you wondering what the intent here is:
On of my players wanted to make a fighter/warlock with Polearm Master and War caster feats, shooting Eldritch Blast with the Repelling Blast invocation, so every time an enemy entered his reach, he could yeet them away from him. Rinse and repeat :P
That will only work if the enemy has no more movement after the Eldritch Blast. RAW doesn't seem like anything is stopping you from doing that. Now, it's up to you to interpret the rules with common sense, and tell the player that PAM is designed to work with polearms. That is, if you don't do a polearm attack, you shouldn't be able to use that feat. I would make an exception for spells that trigger a polearrm attack (like booming blade), but an eldritch blast I wouldn't let it be used this way.
But as the rules are written I don't see anything stopping you from doing what your player intends.
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.
@Rick___Deckard Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?
@mikemearls No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack
@henryhiggins47 if I have the war caster feat and a reach weapon can I use a spell instead of the weapon if they move to 15 ft?
@JeremyECrawford The intent is that any OA triggered because you're wielding a polearm is then made with that polearm
Jeremy’s tweets are just his personal opinion. They are not and never have been RAW. There was even a statement made by WoTC confirming that they should never be taken as RAW.
I didn't say the Devs tweet are RAW i said they confirmed the intent as the OP said it would think, so we have RAI. Yes RAW it works and many people already answered, so i instead brought something relevant to the discussions that would also help clarify what the OP was thinking.
All of your answers have been great! Thank you all so much.
To those of you wondering what the intent here is:
On of my players wanted to make a fighter/warlock with Polearm Master and War caster feats, shooting Eldritch Blast with the Repelling Blast invocation, so every time an enemy entered his reach, he could yeet them away from him. Rinse and repeat :P
I was wondering if Eldritch Blast with Repelling Blast was what the player was thinking about. Even going with the strict RAW interpretation this only works for characters level 1-4. At level 5 Eldritch Blast gets a second attack and so can target more than one creature, thus it no longer qualifies for War Caster.
Also, something to be aware of if the player is also looking at the Sentinel feat is that it triggers off of hitting with an Opportunity Attack. War Caster let's you replace an Opportunity Attack with a spell and so wouldn't interact with Sentinel.
I was wondering if Eldritch Blast with Repelling Blast was what the player was thinking about. Even going with the strict RAW interpretation this only works for characters level 1-4. At level 5 Eldritch Blast gets a second attack and so can target more than one creature, thus it no longer qualifies for War Caster.
You should be fine using Eldritch Blast at any level as long as you "target only that creature." War caster wording isn't as picky as twinned spell metamagic wording and is more concerned with the way you use the spell rather than what the spell is capable of.
I was wondering if Eldritch Blast with Repelling Blast was what the player was thinking about. Even going with the strict RAW interpretation this only works for characters level 1-4. At level 5 Eldritch Blast gets a second attack and so can target more than one creature, thus it no longer qualifies for War Caster.
You should be fine using Eldritch Blast at any level as long as you "target only that creature." War caster wording isn't as picky as twinned spell metamagic wording and is more concerned with the way you use the spell rather than what the spell is capable of.
Oh, I stand corrected, thanks TexasDevin!
War Caster says the spell must target only the provoking creature but not that it must be incapable of targeting more than one creature, like Twinned Spell does.
All of your answers have been great! Thank you all so much.
To those of you wondering what the intent here is:
On of my players wanted to make a fighter/warlock with Polearm Master and War caster feats, shooting Eldritch Blast with the Repelling Blast invocation, so every time an enemy entered his reach, he could yeet them away from him. Rinse and repeat :P
It is pretty self-limiting since the opportunity attack uses your reaction (unless you are allowing the tunnel fighter fighting style which would be a bad idea :) ) so you can only do this once/round.
Allowing unlimited casting of eldritch blast via opportunity attacks from tunnel fighter combined with warcaster at a range of 10' due to PAM would be pretty over the top ...
Can you use your bonus attack if you miss the initial attack action?
Yes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've let hold person work with this at my table, it's just the supplying of some material components I take issue with in some cases (Where the weapon isn't a focus/some other method of negating the materials). I'm struggling to think of too many RAW spells that this would even affect for me, but I do check if my players ask.
I think Banishment is probably the best example I can come up with right now for why I do this personally on a spell by spell basis. The material component is very specific (an item distasteful to the target) and if you can't replace it with a focus, I would imagine your reaction time would be over before you could think about what item to even use as the material for that, let alone sort out freeing up a hand while not dropping your glaive, pulling it out and then doing the required hand gesture.
They're (my players) more upset they can't bladetrip with it than anything else though I think.
I just don't want the OP to feel like because it is ok by RAW that means they have to allow it.
Technically you can often get around the having a free hand thing by dropping your weapon and picking it up at the start of your next turn as your free object interaction as well, but I hate encouraging that kind of messing about and wouldn't allow that at my table either.
Jeremy’s tweets are just his personal opinion. They are not and never have been RAW. There was even a statement made by WoTC confirming that they should never be taken as RAW.
All of your answers have been great! Thank you all so much.
To those of you wondering what the intent here is:
On of my players wanted to make a fighter/warlock with Polearm Master and War caster feats, shooting Eldritch Blast with the Repelling Blast invocation, so every time an enemy entered his reach, he could yeet them away from him. Rinse and repeat :P
That will only work if the enemy has no more movement after the Eldritch Blast.
RAW doesn't seem like anything is stopping you from doing that. Now, it's up to you to interpret the rules with common sense, and tell the player that PAM is designed to work with polearms. That is, if you don't do a polearm attack, you shouldn't be able to use that feat. I would make an exception for spells that trigger a polearrm attack (like booming blade), but an eldritch blast I wouldn't let it be used this way.
But as the rules are written I don't see anything stopping you from doing what your player intends.
I didn't say the Devs tweet are RAW i said they confirmed the intent as the OP said it would think, so we have RAI. Yes RAW it works and many people already answered, so i instead brought something relevant to the discussions that would also help clarify what the OP was thinking.
I was wondering if Eldritch Blast with Repelling Blast was what the player was thinking about. Even going with the strict RAW interpretation this only works for characters level 1-4. At level 5 Eldritch Blast gets a second attack and so can target more than one creature, thus it no longer qualifies for War Caster.
Also, something to be aware of if the player is also looking at the Sentinel feat is that it triggers off of hitting with an Opportunity Attack. War Caster let's you replace an Opportunity Attack with a spell and so wouldn't interact with Sentinel.
You should be fine using Eldritch Blast at any level as long as you "target only that creature." War caster wording isn't as picky as twinned spell metamagic wording and is more concerned with the way you use the spell rather than what the spell is capable of.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Oh, I stand corrected, thanks TexasDevin!
War Caster says the spell must target only the provoking creature but not that it must be incapable of targeting more than one creature, like Twinned Spell does.
It is pretty self-limiting since the opportunity attack uses your reaction (unless you are allowing the tunnel fighter fighting style which would be a bad idea :) ) so you can only do this once/round.
Allowing unlimited casting of eldritch blast via opportunity attacks from tunnel fighter combined with warcaster at a range of 10' due to PAM would be pretty over the top ...
Can you use your bonus attack if you miss the initial attack action?
Yes.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)