Warcaster

Quote from Character77006 >>

Quote from kenclary >>

Quote from Character77006 >>

I don't understand why the need for a loophole to cast AOE spells?   What is the issue have a limit of what type of spells you can use?  If you know you might use the limitations of a spell with the feat, pick a spell that can be used , and keep it in reserve if you have to use it for this purpose.

There isn't much reason...even if your DM says you can cast Fireball via Warcaster, with the limitation that it only target one thing, it'd be a waste. It's hardly a "loophole."

Why is it a waste to only cast against a single being/monster/BBEG?  This is what I don't understand.
Everything has some sort of limitation, why is only being able to target a single being/monster/BBEG a problem?  Have a spell that meets this limitation and only use it when the limitation is in effect.

If I'm going to bother casting an AoE, I'd prefer it hit more than one thing.

Sure, getting to cast as a Reaction is nice from an action-economy perspective, but for the most part it's much better to stick to single-target spells if there's a single-target limitation.

Quote from Sequilonis >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

I disagree with Tarod_, but if that is the table's interpretation, you just place the point of origin about 15 feet behind your target. If you are in close quarters, it won't work.

It's another case of discuss it with your DM before relying on the strategy.

 If you were to allow spells like Fireball that have an AoE to be used with Warcaster, would you also then allow spells like Hunger of Hadar or Wall of Fire so long as only one creature is in the area at the time of casting?

That's a better question for Tarod_ as I would not allow Fireball; I was only explaining how to meet the criteria at a table that ruled in such a way.

Quote from up2ng >>

However, there is a simpler reason why spells such as Fireball are disqualified.  Warcaster requires the spell to be cast "at" the creature, which is very deliberate wording.  Fireball is cast at a point in space, not at a creature.

That's an excellent point.

If I'm going to bother casting an AoE, I'd prefer it hit more than one thing.

However, there is a simpler reason why spells such as Fireball are disqualified. 

I don't understand why people are trying to use spells that are disqualified.  If you can't use them, then why are people trying to find ways to use them?

If the rules state, "...requires the spell to be cast "at" the creature, " I don't understand why they want other things to be cast.

Quote from Character77006>>

If I'm going to bother casting an AoE, I'd prefer it hit more than one thing.

I don't understand why people are trying to use spells that are disqualified.  If you can't use them, then why are people trying to find ways to use them?

I think they are just arguing about whether or not the spells are disqualified (and searching for ever-elusive ways to cast more spells more often...). There's not exactly consensus about this.

If the rules state, "...requires the spell to be cast "at" the creature, " I don't understand why they want other things to be cast.

The word "at" doesn't mean much there. up2ng is just wrong about that. The relevant rule is "The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature" and people are hemming about the definition of "target." Thus referencing some old tweets as RAI.

Anyway, I think it's pretty moot because, again, even if you can limit the targetting to one creature, you usually wouldn't want to for an AoE. There are plenty of single-target spells that are usually better options.

Quote from kenclary >>

The word "at" doesn't mean much there. up2ng is just wrong about that. The relevant rule is "The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature" . . .

Absolutely not.  Here is the entire rule, all of which is "relevant" obviously:

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.

Thematically, this is meant to look and feel like an Opportunity Attack, but you are doing it by casting a spell.  You are lashing out "at" the provoking creature just before it leaves your reach.  This is clearly meant to be used with spells such as Shocking Grasp, for example.  If the spell description does not make it clear that the spell is cast at a creature (almost all offensive AoE spells are not cast at a creature) then it does not qualify.

As an aside, it seems reasonable to allow a spell such as Scorching Ray, but in that particular case each of the attack rolls would be made at disadvantage (ranged attacks while an enemy is within 5 feet).

Quote from up2ng >>

Quote from kenclary >>

The word "at" doesn't mean much there. up2ng is just wrong about that. The relevant rule is "The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature" . . .

Absolutely not.  Here is the entire rule, all of which is "relevant" obviously:

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.

I'll just repeat myself from this older post:

The "cast at" phrasing (including the specific "cast a spell at") is only used once in the books, in War Caster. It's not load-bearing; they probably used it to not put any load on the origin/target distinction. The very next sentence ("The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature") clarifies exactly what they mean.

The Range: Self rules use the "cast on" (not "at"!) construct. I think that is also a "one time only" deal. It's still not a formal definition, but if we were so determined, we could, by process of association, say that "cast on" indicates origin but "cast at" indicates target. But this is likely silly and overthinking.

Quote from up2ng >>

As an aside, it seems reasonable to allow a spell such as Scorching Ray, but in that particular case each of the attack rolls would be made at disadvantage (ranged attacks while an enemy is within 5 feet).

Not necessarily. It takes Martial Weapons proficiency, but using a reach weapon allows you to make attacks of opportunity at 10 feet. Also, if any spellcasting creatures/NPCs have an equivalent ability, innate reach, and appropriate spells, they could make an opportunity attack at range with a spell.

Quote from Character77006 >>

If I'm going to bother casting an AoE, I'd prefer it hit more than one thing.

 

However, there is a simpler reason why spells such as Fireball are disqualified. 

 

I don't understand why people are trying to use spells that are disqualified.  If you can't use them, then why are people trying to find ways to use them?

If the rules state, "...requires the spell to be cast "at" the creature, " I don't understand why they want other things to be cast.

 This is basically one of the most well-known D&D-player tropes.

Players will always announce they have Darkvision when the merest hint that the area might be darkened comes up.

Players will always exclaim "I loot the bodies!" immediately after combat has finished.

Bard players will attempt to seduce anything within arms length.

Players will yell "Insight check!" whenever an NPC says anything that seems connected to the plot.

Players will attempt to rules-lawyer or stretch the definitions of spells/features/etc to gain any perceived advantage they can. 

It's the way of things.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5>>

Quote from Sequilonis>>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5>>

I disagree with Tarod_, but if that is the table's interpretation, you just place the point of origin about 15 feet behind your target. If you are in close quarters, it won't work.

It's another case of discuss it with your DM before relying on the strategy.

 If you were to allow spells like Fireball that have an AoE to be used with Warcaster, would you also then allow spells like Hunger of Hadar or Wall of Fire so long as only one creature is in the area at the time of casting?

That's a better question for Tarod_ as I would not allow Fireball; I was only explaining how to meet the criteria at a table that ruled in such a way.

 Well, the answer is simple, really: you should allow some Area of Effect spells similar to Fireball only if you understand the rules for Range, Effects and Targets in the same way I do.

EDIT: That said, I also think it's not a brilliant move, at least for Fireball or probably other Area of Effect spells with Duration: Instantaneous.

EDIT#2: for clarity.

I really like Command for Warcaster.  If they try to run away you Command Approach. That way they finish running away but next turn they have to come right back.