My DM and I got into a bit of an argument during our last session. During the combat our two casters (me as a rogue/bladesinger and our druid) were casting spells from a distance when a pack of wolves got in close to us. I activated bladesong and then used my attack action to use booming blade on one of the wolves. He then used an opportunity attack to hit me because according to him as long as the spell is somatic it provokes an opportunity attack which he then rolled and got a nat 20 on the hit and I took 18 damage I didn't think I deserved. Later on in the fight the same thing happened to the druid who tried to cast a touch spell.
Am I wrong in thinking that our DM made a mistake, or did he actually make a mistake?
My DM and I got into a bit of an argument during our last session. During the combat our two casters (me as a rogue/bladesinger and our druid) were casting spells from a distance when a pack of wolves got in close to us. I activated bladesong and then used my attack action to use booming blade on one of the wolves. He then used an opportunity attack to hit me because according to him as long as the spell is somatic it provokes an opportunity attack which he then rolled and got a nat 20 on the hit and I took 18 damage I didn't think I deserved. Later on in the fight the same thing happened to the druid who tried to cast a touch spell.
Am I wrong in thinking that our DM made a mistake, or did he actually make a mistake?
In 5E, that would mean the wolves had the Mage Slayer feat (the rules were different in earlier editions). If your DM is saying that they've given every creature on the planet the Mage Slayer feat, they should have made it clear during session zero so you knew that when making your spellcaster. Ask your DM if this is intentional, and if it is, because you were surprised by a house rule you couldn't have seen coming that badly nerfs you, the classy move is to let you respec with your new knowledge of how your DM's world works.
Maybe, but he also said when it came to the druid touch spell that to avoid the OA they have to cast the touch spell before getting to the target then walk up to the target and use the spell.
Maybe, but he also said when it came to the druid touch spell that to avoid the OA they have to cast the touch spell before getting to the target then walk up to the target and use the spell.
Your GM is just plain wrong: Casters are allowed to do their thing in melee range now. No opportunity attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
OAs against casters used to be a thing in previous editions. Could be your DM is thinking of that.
Definitely this!
If the DM is going to implement this rule in your 5E campaign and you weren't told about it in your session 0, then all players of spellcasters should be given the opportunity to build new characters.
Either your DM houseruled Opportunity Attacks or just misremembered them from previous editions, in which a bunch of stuff provoked. In 5E very little outside of moving provoke and it's specifically mentioned when it does. Spellcasting, ranged attacks etc... does not.
Am I wrong in thinking that our DM made a mistake, or did he actually make a mistake?
As others have said, this is either a mistake based upon a memory of earlier editions or a house rule based upon the same.
When something like this happens to me, I like to ask for (or give) the rule reference. Probably not in the moment, but definitely after the session. Point out the mention at PHB195, and the Mage Slayer feat at PHB168; ask where their ruling is coming from. This gives them a bit more space to admit their mistake than if you just come at them telling them that you and everyone on the forums thinks they're wrong.
As a DM who has unintentionally imported previous rules into a game that was supposed to be set in 5e, I can say that's what would work best on me.
So quick update, after talking to him this morning he said he allowed the wolves to do it to add a challenge to the combat because he thought it was too easy. He apologized about making the game uncomfortable and said not all the enemies moving forward will do that.
So quick update, after talking to him this morning he said he allowed the wolves to do it to add a challenge to the combat because he thought it was too easy. He apologized about making the game uncomfortable and said not all the enemies moving forward will do that.
If you are on good terms and can speak politely to the DM, you may want to suggest that there are better ways to balance a combat than changing the rules in the middle of the fight just to make the fight more "even".
A few tips for the DM
- fights don't always need to be even.
The players usually enjoy it a lot if they can easily defeat some challenges. It gives them the feeling that their characters are capable adventurers. It is also more "realistic". If the DM makes every fight into an even contest then if the players have any sense of immersion in the game then they will likely ask why? Why does each contest we encounter challenge us to the same level - none are deadly but none are easy. Having the same level of challenge across all encounters and making it happen by changing the rules up just isn't a good long term approach.
- if the DM does want to adjust fights on the fly then the easiest way is to use waves of attackers.
If the combat is anywhere except a wide open field, there are usually places where additional creatures could have been hiding/resting that are alerted by the sounds of combat and arrive on later rounds. As long as the DM has not precluded additional enemies as part of the narrative this approach can work very well to balance a fight that is proving much too easy. It is also a solution that makes sense in the game world.
On the other hand, giving wolves a special ability on the spur of the moment to suddenly get opportunity attacks against spell casters is not the right approach. Do the players get to make such op attacks? Can the players next to a wizard who decides to cast fireball get an opportunity attack to interrupt it? Rules are a two way street and basically control the "logic" of the world that the characters and NPCs are living in. Creature special abilities will break that from time to time but your average wolf isn't that special. If a wolf can do it then most every creature should be able to do it.
- if the DM does want to use house rules (which is perfectly fine) then they should let the players know in advance since it affects the choices the characters would make.
If casting a spell at 5' range generates an opportunity attack that can interrupt the spell then the players need to know that. Also, the DMs "ruling" about touch spells needing to be cast more than 5' away from the target to avoid an opportunity attack and then the caster moves in to touch the target is just the DM who made an unfortunate ruling trying to double down on it. Consider the shocking grasp spell. The main purpose of that spell is to allow a spell caster to attack an adjacent target and on a hit the adjacent target loses their reaction allowing the caster to move away without taking the disengage action (no reaction = no opportunity attack). However, the DM ruling in this case makes the spell less useful since casting the spell would generate the opportunity attack that the spell is trying to avoid.
- a good DM will also accept when their ruling may not be the best choice and will tell the players what the problem was and how they are changing the ruling.
If it is a rules question that comes up in the middle of the encounter, the DM often makes a ruling to keep things going but they should feel free to revisit that decision later and change it if they see fit. The DM does not lose face if they later decide that they made a mistake. Rules like casting a spell triggering an opportunity attack existed in previous versions and it could be that the DM likes that rule so they include it in their games. On the other hand, it isn't in 5e, so if the DM included the rule on the spur of the moment for whatever reason then they can decide not to include it generally in future BUT the DM needs to let the players know how the rules of the world work since their characters would KNOW whether some creatures could take opportunity attacks and interrupt their spells or not - they would have learned these basic facts when they learned the casting of spells.
P.S. I've been playing and DMing this game for over 40 years ... and I still make mistakes or decide that a particular ruling made in the spur of the moment isn't how I or my players want to see it run so I change it and let everyone know how it will work going forward.
Thanks for the tips, I will definitely have a conversation with him sometime in the near future that way we can be on the same page. This is a character I am just learning to play since multiclassing it as a rogue/wizard so I was really thrown off because it is the first time I have played a heavy spell caster type character and it is my learning character for when I want to start play a full blown wizard in a possible future campaign. So seeing those wolves hit me when I was trying to blade dance and use booming blade threw me off my game and I didn't know what to do. So much so that on follow up turns I forgot that my AC was 19 with blade dance and that shield would give me a 24 AC and saved me from two attacks.
Hey everyone!
My DM and I got into a bit of an argument during our last session. During the combat our two casters (me as a rogue/bladesinger and our druid) were casting spells from a distance when a pack of wolves got in close to us. I activated bladesong and then used my attack action to use booming blade on one of the wolves. He then used an opportunity attack to hit me because according to him as long as the spell is somatic it provokes an opportunity attack which he then rolled and got a nat 20 on the hit and I took 18 damage I didn't think I deserved. Later on in the fight the same thing happened to the druid who tried to cast a touch spell.
Am I wrong in thinking that our DM made a mistake, or did he actually make a mistake?
In 5E, that would mean the wolves had the Mage Slayer feat (the rules were different in earlier editions). If your DM is saying that they've given every creature on the planet the Mage Slayer feat, they should have made it clear during session zero so you knew that when making your spellcaster. Ask your DM if this is intentional, and if it is, because you were surprised by a house rule you couldn't have seen coming that badly nerfs you, the classy move is to let you respec with your new knowledge of how your DM's world works.
OAs against casters used to be a thing in previous editions. Could be your DM is thinking of that.
Maybe, but he also said when it came to the druid touch spell that to avoid the OA they have to cast the touch spell before getting to the target then walk up to the target and use the spell.
Your GM is just plain wrong: Casters are allowed to do their thing in melee range now. No opportunity attacks.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Definitely this!
If the DM is going to implement this rule in your 5E campaign and you weren't told about it in your session 0, then all players of spellcasters should be given the opportunity to build new characters.
Either your DM houseruled Opportunity Attacks or just misremembered them from previous editions, in which a bunch of stuff provoked. In 5E very little outside of moving provoke and it's specifically mentioned when it does. Spellcasting, ranged attacks etc... does not.
As others have said, this is either a mistake based upon a memory of earlier editions or a house rule based upon the same.
When something like this happens to me, I like to ask for (or give) the rule reference. Probably not in the moment, but definitely after the session. Point out the mention at PHB195, and the Mage Slayer feat at PHB168; ask where their ruling is coming from. This gives them a bit more space to admit their mistake than if you just come at them telling them that you and everyone on the forums thinks they're wrong.
As a DM who has unintentionally imported previous rules into a game that was supposed to be set in 5e, I can say that's what would work best on me.
So quick update, after talking to him this morning he said he allowed the wolves to do it to add a challenge to the combat because he thought it was too easy. He apologized about making the game uncomfortable and said not all the enemies moving forward will do that.
On the plus side I now have inspiration to make a pack of mage slayer wolves left over from some ancient war. So Thanks!
Are you aware of crag cats?
Oh that's cool! No I wasn't. Thank you!!
If you are on good terms and can speak politely to the DM, you may want to suggest that there are better ways to balance a combat than changing the rules in the middle of the fight just to make the fight more "even".
A few tips for the DM
- fights don't always need to be even.
The players usually enjoy it a lot if they can easily defeat some challenges. It gives them the feeling that their characters are capable adventurers. It is also more "realistic". If the DM makes every fight into an even contest then if the players have any sense of immersion in the game then they will likely ask why? Why does each contest we encounter challenge us to the same level - none are deadly but none are easy. Having the same level of challenge across all encounters and making it happen by changing the rules up just isn't a good long term approach.
- if the DM does want to adjust fights on the fly then the easiest way is to use waves of attackers.
If the combat is anywhere except a wide open field, there are usually places where additional creatures could have been hiding/resting that are alerted by the sounds of combat and arrive on later rounds. As long as the DM has not precluded additional enemies as part of the narrative this approach can work very well to balance a fight that is proving much too easy. It is also a solution that makes sense in the game world.
On the other hand, giving wolves a special ability on the spur of the moment to suddenly get opportunity attacks against spell casters is not the right approach. Do the players get to make such op attacks? Can the players next to a wizard who decides to cast fireball get an opportunity attack to interrupt it? Rules are a two way street and basically control the "logic" of the world that the characters and NPCs are living in. Creature special abilities will break that from time to time but your average wolf isn't that special. If a wolf can do it then most every creature should be able to do it.
- if the DM does want to use house rules (which is perfectly fine) then they should let the players know in advance since it affects the choices the characters would make.
If casting a spell at 5' range generates an opportunity attack that can interrupt the spell then the players need to know that. Also, the DMs "ruling" about touch spells needing to be cast more than 5' away from the target to avoid an opportunity attack and then the caster moves in to touch the target is just the DM who made an unfortunate ruling trying to double down on it. Consider the shocking grasp spell. The main purpose of that spell is to allow a spell caster to attack an adjacent target and on a hit the adjacent target loses their reaction allowing the caster to move away without taking the disengage action (no reaction = no opportunity attack). However, the DM ruling in this case makes the spell less useful since casting the spell would generate the opportunity attack that the spell is trying to avoid.
- a good DM will also accept when their ruling may not be the best choice and will tell the players what the problem was and how they are changing the ruling.
If it is a rules question that comes up in the middle of the encounter, the DM often makes a ruling to keep things going but they should feel free to revisit that decision later and change it if they see fit. The DM does not lose face if they later decide that they made a mistake. Rules like casting a spell triggering an opportunity attack existed in previous versions and it could be that the DM likes that rule so they include it in their games. On the other hand, it isn't in 5e, so if the DM included the rule on the spur of the moment for whatever reason then they can decide not to include it generally in future BUT the DM needs to let the players know how the rules of the world work since their characters would KNOW whether some creatures could take opportunity attacks and interrupt their spells or not - they would have learned these basic facts when they learned the casting of spells.
P.S. I've been playing and DMing this game for over 40 years ... and I still make mistakes or decide that a particular ruling made in the spur of the moment isn't how I or my players want to see it run so I change it and let everyone know how it will work going forward.
Thanks for the tips, I will definitely have a conversation with him sometime in the near future that way we can be on the same page. This is a character I am just learning to play since multiclassing it as a rogue/wizard so I was really thrown off because it is the first time I have played a heavy spell caster type character and it is my learning character for when I want to start play a full blown wizard in a possible future campaign. So seeing those wolves hit me when I was trying to blade dance and use booming blade threw me off my game and I didn't know what to do. So much so that on follow up turns I forgot that my AC was 19 with blade dance and that shield would give me a 24 AC and saved me from two attacks.