Reactive Spell.When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Reactive Spell from Warcaster now allows for targeting allies.
Guardian. Immediately after a creature within 5 feet of you takes the Disengage action or hits a target other than you with an attack, you can make an Opportunity Attack against that creature.
Halt. When you hit a creature with an Opportunity Attack, the creature’s Speed becomes 0 for the rest of the current turn.
Sentinel still drops their speed to 0 and also seemingly allows for AoO if they attack a creature when within 5ft of you? So a ranged attack out to 60 ft allows you to heal your ally but they can't move?
Surely I'm interpreting this incorrectly. And it doesn't say I can choose not to apply the speed debuff either.
Reactive Spell.When a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.
Reactive Spell from Warcaster now allows for targeting allies.
Guardian. Immediately after a creature within 5 feet of you takes the Disengage action or hits a target other than you with an attack, you can make an Opportunity Attack against that creature.
Halt. When you hit a creature with an Opportunity Attack, the creature’s Speed becomes 0 for the rest of the current turn.
Sentinel still drops their speed to 0 and also seemingly allows for AoO if they attack a creature when within 5ft of you? So a ranged attack out to 60 ft allows you to heal your ally but they can't move?
Surely I'm interpreting this incorrectly. And it doesn't say I can choose not to apply the speed debuff either.
The "Halt" feature says the creature's speed becomes zero when you hit them with an opportunity attack. If you cast a spell instead, you haven't hit them with an opportunity attack, and the Halt effect doesn't occur. (It does not seem like the intent of this feature is for you to be able to cast a spell at an ally when they leave your reach like this, but it does seem to work under Rules As Written.)
Reactive Spell from Warcaster now allows for targeting allies.
In introduction, it's clear to me Opportunity Attacks are not meant to be provoked by allies.
Opportunity Attacks: Combatants watch for enemies to drop their guard. If you move heedlessly past your foes, you put yourself in danger by provoking an Opportunity Attack.
Also, we can infer Opportunity Attacks are intended to be used against provoking creatures (a.k.a. your enemies or opponents) based on this rule from the Rules Glossary:
Opportunity Attacks
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strikeagainst the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
Also, we can infer Opportunity Attacks are intended to be used against provoking creatures (a.k.a. your enemies or opponents) based on this rule from the Rules Glossary:
Opportunity Attacks
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strikeagainst the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
The 'provocation' is leaving your Reach, nothing more -- it's a solid RAI argument, but RAW there is no mention of enemies or opponents in there
And honestly, I would have a hard time arguing against it as a DM. If you can cast shocking grasp against a person moving away from you with War Caster, why not a healing touch spell?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
An AoO is a player's reflexes kicking in when someone zooms by them or flees from them
If you have War Caster which allows you to strike out with a spell instead of a weapon, and you're a healer and see a wounded party mate run by instead... I just don't see that as the equivalent of attacking an ally to trigger a feature that might help them, or something along those lines. You're casting the spell to do what it was intended to do, and not violating that guideline per RAW
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
An AoO is a player's reflexes kicking in when someone zooms by them or flees from them
If you have War Caster which allows you to strike out with a spell instead of a weapon, and you're a healer and see a wounded party mate run by instead... I just don't see that as the equivalent of attacking an ally to trigger a feature that might help them, or something along those lines. You're casting the spell to do what it was intended to do, and not violating that guideline per RAW
I get it. I see the argument for it. It’s just Opportunity Attack has “attack” right in the name. Which is what the DMG is saying not to allow.
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
An AoO is a player's reflexes kicking in when someone zooms by them or flees from them
If you have War Caster which allows you to strike out with a spell instead of a weapon, and you're a healer and see a wounded party mate run by instead... I just don't see that as the equivalent of attacking an ally to trigger a feature that might help them, or something along those lines. You're casting the spell to do what it was intended to do, and not violating that guideline per RAW
I get it. I see the argument for it. It’s just Opportunity Attack has “attack” right in the name. Which is what the DMG is saying not to allow.
I mean, if we're talking about rules and game elements that are woefully misnamed, I've got a list around here somewhere
I too see the other side of it. I just think trying to make an explicitly RAW argument around "don't abuse the rules" is pretty flimsy in this case
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
An AoO is a player's reflexes kicking in when someone zooms by them or flees from them
If you have War Caster which allows you to strike out with a spell instead of a weapon, and you're a healer and see a wounded party mate run by instead... I just don't see that as the equivalent of attacking an ally to trigger a feature that might help them, or something along those lines. You're casting the spell to do what it was intended to do, and not violating that guideline per RAW
I get it. I see the argument for it. It’s just Opportunity Attack has “attack” right in the name. Which is what the DMG is saying not to allow.
I mean, if we're talking about rules and game elements that are woefully misnamed, I've got a list around here somewhere
I too see the other side of it. I just think trying to make an explicitly RAW argument around "don't abuse the rules" is pretty flimsy in this case
By definition, the DMG saying "this is not an intended interaction and we advise not allowing it" is RAW, or so close as to make no difference.
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
An AoO is a player's reflexes kicking in when someone zooms by them or flees from them
If you have War Caster which allows you to strike out with a spell instead of a weapon, and you're a healer and see a wounded party mate run by instead... I just don't see that as the equivalent of attacking an ally to trigger a feature that might help them, or something along those lines. You're casting the spell to do what it was intended to do, and not violating that guideline per RAW
I get it. I see the argument for it. It’s just Opportunity Attack has “attack” right in the name. Which is what the DMG is saying not to allow.
I mean, if we're talking about rules and game elements that are woefully misnamed, I've got a list around here somewhere
I too see the other side of it. I just think trying to make an explicitly RAW argument around "don't abuse the rules" is pretty flimsy in this case
By definition, the DMG saying "this is not an intended interaction and we advise not allowing it" is RAW, or so close as to make no difference.
War Caster was explicitly written to change the options available with an AoO (and explicitly rewritten to drop the "hostile creature" part of the 2014 version), and to include spells that are not "attacking" spells. It is not at all clear what the "intended interaction" between Opportunity Attacks and War Caster is. If they just wanted to limit it to spells with attack rolls or which require saving throws, they could have done that
Let's branch out from healing spells on allies then. Someone you're trying to get information from, and who you know the BBEG is trying to kill to prevent you from getting that info, tries to run away after you roll a nat 1 on your Persuasion check. Could you could cast death ward on them using War Caster?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Also, we can infer Opportunity Attacks are intended to be used against provoking creatures (a.k.a. your enemies or opponents) based on this rule from the Rules Glossary:
Opportunity Attacks
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strikeagainst the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
The 'provocation' is leaving your Reach, nothing more -- it's a solid RAI argument, but RAW there is no mention of enemies or opponents in there
And honestly, I would have a hard time arguing against it as a DM. If you can cast shocking grasp against a person moving away from you with War Caster, why not a healing touch spell?
Yeah, I forgot to link "make a melee attack" with "against the provoking creature". As an isolated word, I agree with you about its meaning. Sorry for not being clear. I tried Mending with my fabulous, funny message after that.
Also, we can infer Opportunity Attacks are intended to be used against provoking creatures (a.k.a. your enemies or opponents) based on this rule from the Rules Glossary:
Opportunity Attacks
You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strikeagainst the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
The 'provocation' is leaving your Reach, nothing more -- it's a solid RAI argument, but RAW there is no mention of enemies or opponents in there
And honestly, I would have a hard time arguing against it as a DM. If you can cast shocking grasp against a person moving away from you with War Caster, why not a healing touch spell?
Yeah, I forgot to link "make a melee attack" with "against the provoking creature". As an isolated word, I agree with you about its meaning. Sorry for not being clear. I tried Mending with my fabulous, funny message after that.
Right, but once you add War Caster to the equation, you no longer have to make a melee attack, or indeed an attack of any kind as the rules define it
I don't think there's much confusion about Opportunity Attack on its own. RAW/RAI, you take a swing at an enemy that runs past/away from you
AoO plus War Caster... things get fuzzier
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Avoiding Opportunity Attacks also doesn't indicate allies but foes/enemy.
Avoiding Opportunity Attacks. You can avoid provoking an Opportunity Attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an Opportunity Attack when you Teleport or when you are moved without using your movement, action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an Opportunity Attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if you fall past an enemy.
[...] Let's branch out from healing spells on allies then. Someone you're trying to get information from, and who you know the BBEG is trying to kill to prevent you from getting that info, tries to run away after you roll a nat 1 on your Persuasion check. Could you could cast death ward on them using War Caster?
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
An AoO is a player's reflexes kicking in when someone zooms by them or flees from them
If you have War Caster which allows you to strike out with a spell instead of a weapon, and you're a healer and see a wounded party mate run by instead... I just don't see that as the equivalent of attacking an ally to trigger a feature that might help them, or something along those lines. You're casting the spell to do what it was intended to do, and not violating that guideline per RAW
I get it. I see the argument for it. It’s just Opportunity Attack has “attack” right in the name. Which is what the DMG is saying not to allow.
Doesn't really matter what opportunity attack is, you're casting a spell instead of that.
Avoiding Opportunity Attacks also doesn't indicate allies but foes/enemy.
Avoiding Opportunity Attacks. You can avoid provoking an Opportunity Attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an Opportunity Attack when you Teleport or when you are moved without using your movement, action, Bonus Action, or Reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an Opportunity Attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if you fall past an enemy.
This line of reasoning falls apart pretty quick. If the party fighter gets mind controlled and told to attack the rest of the party, trying to argue to the DM that he isn't allowed to make opportunity attacks against his allies isn't going to get you anywhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
This line of reasoning falls apart pretty quick. If the party fighter gets mind controlled and told to attack the rest of the party, trying to argue to the DM that he isn't allowed to make opportunity attacks against his allies isn't going to get you anywhere.
If a party member gets mind controlled then they aren't allies any more.
We all instinctively know that OAs are not used against allies because otherwise every DM would be asking players, with a straight face, if they would like to attack their ally every time an ally moves out of their reach.
The texts quoted above show how the collected rules intend that OAs should be triggered. If a DM wishes to allow OAs to trigger by ally movement and thus allow Reactive Spell to use friendly spells with a reaction, then that is fine for their game - but a player should not assume that any given DM will read the rules that way so should not attempt that strategy without discussion before.
This line of reasoning falls apart pretty quick. If the party fighter gets mind controlled and told to attack the rest of the party, trying to argue to the DM that he isn't allowed to make opportunity attacks against his allies isn't going to get you anywhere.
If a party member gets mind controlled then they aren't allies any more.
We all instinctively know that OAs are not used against allies because otherwise every DM would be asking players, with a straight face, if they would like to attack their ally every time an ally moves out of their reach.
The texts quoted above show how the collected rules intend that OAs should be triggered. If a DM wishes to allow OAs to trigger by ally movement and thus allow Reactive Spell to use friendly spells with a reaction, then that is fine for their game - but a player should not assume that any given DM will read the rules that way so should not attempt that strategy without discussion before.
There's a fine line between allies and enemies. I've had two combats with my party in a campaign I am currently in. During one of those fights I made an opportunity attack against an ally/enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reactive Spell from Warcaster now allows for targeting allies.
Sentinel still drops their speed to 0 and also seemingly allows for AoO if they attack a creature when within 5ft of you? So a ranged attack out to 60 ft allows you to heal your ally but they can't move?
Surely I'm interpreting this incorrectly. And it doesn't say I can choose not to apply the speed debuff either.
The "Halt" feature says the creature's speed becomes zero when you hit them with an opportunity attack. If you cast a spell instead, you haven't hit them with an opportunity attack, and the Halt effect doesn't occur. (It does not seem like the intent of this feature is for you to be able to cast a spell at an ally when they leave your reach like this, but it does seem to work under Rules As Written.)
pronouns: he/she/they
In introduction, it's clear to me Opportunity Attacks are not meant to be provoked by allies.
I agree with @Plaguescarred.
Also, we can infer Opportunity Attacks are intended to be used against provoking creatures (a.k.a. your enemies or opponents) based on this rule from the Rules Glossary:
Also, the rule says "make one melee attack against the creature". Please, don't attack your friends :(
My DM likes the change to allow for targeting allies with spells, so I guess we can call it homebrew.
I appreciate the clarification on attacks vs spells, thank you.
The 'provocation' is leaving your Reach, nothing more -- it's a solid RAI argument, but RAW there is no mention of enemies or opponents in there
And honestly, I would have a hard time arguing against it as a DM. If you can cast shocking grasp against a person moving away from you with War Caster, why not a healing touch spell?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The argument against it is in the DMG:
Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.
Of course, if you want to allow it, it’s your table and that cool. Just it is, technically, not RAW.
An AoO is a player's reflexes kicking in when someone zooms by them or flees from them
If you have War Caster which allows you to strike out with a spell instead of a weapon, and you're a healer and see a wounded party mate run by instead... I just don't see that as the equivalent of attacking an ally to trigger a feature that might help them, or something along those lines. You're casting the spell to do what it was intended to do, and not violating that guideline per RAW
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I get it. I see the argument for it. It’s just Opportunity Attack has “attack” right in the name. Which is what the DMG is saying not to allow.
I mean, if we're talking about rules and game elements that are woefully misnamed, I've got a list around here somewhere
I too see the other side of it. I just think trying to make an explicitly RAW argument around "don't abuse the rules" is pretty flimsy in this case
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
By definition, the DMG saying "this is not an intended interaction and we advise not allowing it" is RAW, or so close as to make no difference.
War Caster was explicitly written to change the options available with an AoO (and explicitly rewritten to drop the "hostile creature" part of the 2014 version), and to include spells that are not "attacking" spells. It is not at all clear what the "intended interaction" between Opportunity Attacks and War Caster is. If they just wanted to limit it to spells with attack rolls or which require saving throws, they could have done that
Let's branch out from healing spells on allies then. Someone you're trying to get information from, and who you know the BBEG is trying to kill to prevent you from getting that info, tries to run away after you roll a nat 1 on your Persuasion check. Could you could cast death ward on them using War Caster?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah, I forgot to link "make a melee attack" with "against the provoking creature". As an isolated word, I agree with you about its meaning. Sorry for not being clear. I tried Mending with my fabulous, funny message after that.
Right, but once you add War Caster to the equation, you no longer have to make a melee attack, or indeed an attack of any kind as the rules define it
I don't think there's much confusion about Opportunity Attack on its own. RAW/RAI, you take a swing at an enemy that runs past/away from you
AoO plus War Caster... things get fuzzier
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Avoiding Opportunity Attacks also doesn't indicate allies but foes/enemy.
Your example with Death Ward is very good.
But if we agree an Opportunity Attack is intended to be used with enemies, then the spell you cast could be that or even one healing spell, why not.
I want to be honest with you. I won't deny the wording in War Caster could be better, for example restoring the 2014 Hostile or something similar.
Or not... and maybe many of us here are wrong about the intent.
Doesn't really matter what opportunity attack is, you're casting a spell instead of that.
This line of reasoning falls apart pretty quick. If the party fighter gets mind controlled and told to attack the rest of the party, trying to argue to the DM that he isn't allowed to make opportunity attacks against his allies isn't going to get you anywhere.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
If a party member gets mind controlled then they aren't allies any more.
We all instinctively know that OAs are not used against allies because otherwise every DM would be asking players, with a straight face, if they would like to attack their ally every time an ally moves out of their reach.
The texts quoted above show how the collected rules intend that OAs should be triggered. If a DM wishes to allow OAs to trigger by ally movement and thus allow Reactive Spell to use friendly spells with a reaction, then that is fine for their game - but a player should not assume that any given DM will read the rules that way so should not attempt that strategy without discussion before.
There's a fine line between allies and enemies. I've had two combats with my party in a campaign I am currently in. During one of those fights I made an opportunity attack against an ally/enemy.