Let's make a melee attack. WHY? Even for a character that has War Caster, you spellcast with disadvantage. If you are a ranged class with no reason to have a melee weapon in your hand during combat, you couldn't make an opportunity attack at all following RAW. You can draw a weapon on YOUR turn to make an attack with it. you can't do that for a reaction on someone else's turn.
Anybody come across official rules that dispute this? Please, let there be some for the sake of a little logic.
You only spellcast at disadvantage with War Caster if you use a ranged spell for the attack. If you use a 5ft or touch range spell to do a melee spell attack - you do so normally.
As for opportunity attacks with a ranged weapon - even if you could it would be at disadvantage too. Unless you have the Crossbow Expert feat.
Well, you're right. If you only have a ranged weapon, you can't make an opportunity attack, besides an unarmed or improvised weapon attack (smacking them with your bow.)
And yes, if you have Warcaster, you would be casting an Attack Spell with disadvantage unless you also have the Crossbow Expert feat.
However, Warcaster states "you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature."
Going by this, you don't have to make a Ranged Attack Spell, you can cast ANY spell that targets only one creature and takes one 1 action. Using Banishment or Hold Person would be pretty damn awesome as an "opportunity attack."
Basically it's a timing issue. The game assumes that it takes less time to swing or stab at someone who is running past you that it would to try and aim a ranged attack or spell against them. As such, the game only affords you a melee attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
Narratively-- A melee attack is made because it represents taking split-second advantage of the opening the opponent makes. Reactions are 'split-second'. Casting a spell that isn't a "Reaction" isn't a split-second decision to take advantage of the opening the opponent left. What about for ranged attacks - Draw an arrow/load a crossbow, aim and quickly get a shot off? Or, is it easier to, in a split-second, swipe at someone with something you've already got in-hand?
Mechanically? It's also balancing effect. Martial classes are strong in the early levels, but Spellcasters gain potency quickly and have many more options in combat. Martial melee characters have mechanics like Opportunity Attack which gives them another option. If you'd like to use magic, you can take a feat to accomplish magical OAs. It requires more investment, but spellcasting is already extremely good, so the little bit of investment is worth it if you want to do sword and sorcery. Opportunity attacks are, mechanically, a thing a melee trained combatant does, so a martial melee character will get the most benefit from engaging a fleeing opponent and grabbing those OAs like candy.
Now, if you wanted to you could Ready an action (which uses your action on your turn) to prepare a spell for when an enemy moves out of your melee range, and then cast it-- But that likely isn't the best use of your action. ;)
As a bonus: I'm not sure why you have noted that a character with War Caster makes the attack with disadvantage. You only have disadvantage on Ranged attacks while in melee. So while you might have disadvantage on that Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, a War Caster can use a melee spell as a reaction very effectively. Thorn Whip to reduce how far away they can get, Shocking Grasp to deal some quick lightning and force them to lose their reaction, Inflict Wounds to pile on damage. War Caster is designed for a spellcaster planning to be in melee, so you should hope you have a melee spell or two if you're investing into the feat. :)
And yes, if you have Warcaster, you would be casting an Attack Spell with disadvantage unless you also have the Crossbow Expert feat.
It says no disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. Calling out a specific type of attack roll such as range attack roll, melee attack roll, spellcasting attack roll. I don't personally take this to mean any attack roll normally made at range, quite different things.
Touch range spells and effecr based spells that set a DC are great ideas.
I read the ruling for spellcasting counting for this feat in SA but, it seems like a stretch to me. Many SA "rule clarifications" have an answer that is more complcated than the question, contradicts another rule or SA entry, or doesn't actually answer the question asked. I take SA with a grain of salt .
I could see a DM ruling either way I guess. So, how many casters have or will get this feat for point blank casting?
I personally dislike Sage Advice; it often seems like trigger-happy responses from Jeremy and others with no actual research behind them.
This isn't about Sage Advice though. This is just the rules as written in the core books.
Crossbow expert states: Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
The rules for Ranged Attacks, found under Combat in the Core Rules, are as follows:
Ranged Attacks
When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.
If you think about it this way. You cast a ranged spell - what's the first thing you do? Make an attack roll that happens to be at range. It's the same whether it's a spell or a bow or a thrown dagger. It's still a ranged attack roll.
As for those who would take it. It's very niche. It's for those partial or full casters who spend a lot of time in melee but have ranged spells they want to cast. So Eldritch Knights - Bladesingers - or Hexblades - among others. But again - they could just use melee spells and be fine without it.
And remember it doesn't just mean hitting the person in melee with you. If you make a ranged attack against anyone while an enemy is in melee range with you - you have disadvantage on the attack - unless you have Crossbow Expert.
@MellieDM, I took War Caster mostly for Concentration abilities and to b e able to ignore the wonky somatic spell rules that there are about 100 forum posts on.
I do hear what you guys are saying. The rules suffer from ambiguous wording so RAW and RAI, could be lightyears apart. If you are talking about crossbows and suddenly reference how it applies to spellcasting, and don't question it in the least because the wording MAY be intentional, there's a problem . Loose interpretations lead to rule abuse for the min/ max munchkins.
I'm not going to waste a feat on my Cleric for Crossbow Expert in any case and probably not for any caster I make either.
I wouldn't either. You can just use Touch or single-target Save spells for opportunity attacks with War Caster. Just saying it would be possible. Don't think I'd ever bother dumping two feats on the combination.
Oh definitely I wouldn't recommend Crossbow Expert for a spellcaster. You'd be taking it solely to overcome the disadvantage in melee for ranged spells - and nothing else. It might come up once or twice in a single session when you could simply use a melee spell instead. The combination is certainly no (Polearm Master + Sentinel) that's for sure.
I do hear what you guys are saying. The rules suffer from ambiguous wording so RAW and RAI, could be lightyears apart. If you are talking about crossbows and suddenly reference how it applies to spellcasting, and don't question it in the least because the wording MAY be intentional, there's a problem . Loose interpretations lead to rule abuse for the min/ max munchkins.
But it is intentional. The game designers have specifically mentioned how it was intentional, how they designed the Feat so that it would be useful for something besides shooting crossbows, to avoid such a narrow focus for the investment. I understand how it might look like it's not, and how it's easy to overlook, and how anybody might doubt that it was, in fact, the intention... but the game designers have come out and outright said it was intentional. Moreover, the rules don't tend to use ambiguous wording. They tend to be pretty clear, if not obviously so. Rules that talk about "attacks" really mean "attacks", and not "melee attacks" (a specific type of attack), nor "damaging actions" (which would only be attacks if they involve an attack roll... Magic Missile, for example, is not an attack). They're not perfectly so, and therefore there are errata. They're also not obviously so ("what? Why would being good with crossbows mean I'm better at targeting spells?!"), and therefore there is Sage Advice. (Btw, the "Sage Advice Compendium" is official, as official as the PHB or the DMG.)
Sage Advice isn't official like the 3 Core Rulebooks. Nothing beyond them is. Per Jeremy Crawford only a few months ago:
Jeremy Crawford@JeremyECrawford
The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books. Those rules appear in a shorter form in products like the Starter Set and the free Basic Rules. Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional.
I do hear what you guys are saying. The rules suffer from ambiguous wording
In this instance, no they don't. The wording is EXPLICIT that Crossbow Expert applies to spells. You're just hung up on the name of the feat. If the feat wasn't called that, I don't think you'd be having this problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's make a melee attack. WHY? Even for a character that has War Caster, you spellcast with disadvantage. If you are a ranged class with no reason to have a melee weapon in your hand during combat, you couldn't make an opportunity attack at all following RAW. You can draw a weapon on YOUR turn to make an attack with it. you can't do that for a reaction on someone else's turn.
Anybody come across official rules that dispute this? Please, let there be some for the sake of a little logic.
You only spellcast at disadvantage with War Caster if you use a ranged spell for the attack. If you use a 5ft or touch range spell to do a melee spell attack - you do so normally.
As for opportunity attacks with a ranged weapon - even if you could it would be at disadvantage too. Unless you have the Crossbow Expert feat.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Well, you're right. If you only have a ranged weapon, you can't make an opportunity attack, besides an unarmed or improvised weapon attack (smacking them with your bow.)
And yes, if you have Warcaster, you would be casting an Attack Spell with disadvantage unless you also have the Crossbow Expert feat.
However, Warcaster states "you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature."
Going by this, you don't have to make a Ranged Attack Spell, you can cast ANY spell that targets only one creature and takes one 1 action. Using Banishment or Hold Person would be pretty damn awesome as an "opportunity attack."
That seems right. You can make a melee attack as an opportunity attack, but not cast a spell or make a ranged attack. What seems illogical here?
Basically it's a timing issue. The game assumes that it takes less time to swing or stab at someone who is running past you that it would to try and aim a ranged attack or spell against them. As such, the game only affords you a melee attack.
This is my opinion:
Narratively-- A melee attack is made because it represents taking split-second advantage of the opening the opponent makes. Reactions are 'split-second'. Casting a spell that isn't a "Reaction" isn't a split-second decision to take advantage of the opening the opponent left. What about for ranged attacks - Draw an arrow/load a crossbow, aim and quickly get a shot off? Or, is it easier to, in a split-second, swipe at someone with something you've already got in-hand?
Mechanically? It's also balancing effect. Martial classes are strong in the early levels, but Spellcasters gain potency quickly and have many more options in combat. Martial melee characters have mechanics like Opportunity Attack which gives them another option. If you'd like to use magic, you can take a feat to accomplish magical OAs. It requires more investment, but spellcasting is already extremely good, so the little bit of investment is worth it if you want to do sword and sorcery. Opportunity attacks are, mechanically, a thing a melee trained combatant does, so a martial melee character will get the most benefit from engaging a fleeing opponent and grabbing those OAs like candy.
Now, if you wanted to you could Ready an action (which uses your action on your turn) to prepare a spell for when an enemy moves out of your melee range, and then cast it-- But that likely isn't the best use of your action. ;)
As a bonus: I'm not sure why you have noted that a character with War Caster makes the attack with disadvantage. You only have disadvantage on Ranged attacks while in melee. So while you might have disadvantage on that Fire Bolt or Eldritch Blast, a War Caster can use a melee spell as a reaction very effectively. Thorn Whip to reduce how far away they can get, Shocking Grasp to deal some quick lightning and force them to lose their reaction, Inflict Wounds to pile on damage. War Caster is designed for a spellcaster planning to be in melee, so you should hope you have a melee spell or two if you're investing into the feat. :)
It says no disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls. Calling out a specific type of attack roll such as range attack roll, melee attack roll, spellcasting attack roll. I don't personally take this to mean any attack roll normally made at range, quite different things.
Touch range spells and effecr based spells that set a DC are great ideas.
Ranged spell attacks are ranged attack rolls. If it said 'ranged weapon attack rolls' then it would discount spells.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Indeed, as Emmote says above, Ranged Spell Attacks are included in the benefits from Crossbow Expert.
I read the ruling for spellcasting counting for this feat in SA but, it seems like a stretch to me. Many SA "rule clarifications" have an answer that is more complcated than the question, contradicts another rule or SA entry, or doesn't actually answer the question asked. I take SA with a grain of salt .
I could see a DM ruling either way I guess. So, how many casters have or will get this feat for point blank casting?
I personally dislike Sage Advice; it often seems like trigger-happy responses from Jeremy and others with no actual research behind them.
This isn't about Sage Advice though. This is just the rules as written in the core books.
Crossbow expert states: Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
The rules for Ranged Attacks, found under Combat in the Core Rules, are as follows:
Ranged Attacks
When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.
If you think about it this way. You cast a ranged spell - what's the first thing you do? Make an attack roll that happens to be at range. It's the same whether it's a spell or a bow or a thrown dagger. It's still a ranged attack roll.
As for those who would take it. It's very niche. It's for those partial or full casters who spend a lot of time in melee but have ranged spells they want to cast. So Eldritch Knights - Bladesingers - or Hexblades - among others. But again - they could just use melee spells and be fine without it.
And remember it doesn't just mean hitting the person in melee with you. If you make a ranged attack against anyone while an enemy is in melee range with you - you have disadvantage on the attack - unless you have Crossbow Expert.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
@MellieDM, I took War Caster mostly for Concentration abilities and to b e able to ignore the wonky somatic spell rules that there are about 100 forum posts on.
I do hear what you guys are saying. The rules suffer from ambiguous wording so RAW and RAI, could be lightyears apart. If you are talking about crossbows and suddenly reference how it applies to spellcasting, and don't question it in the least because the wording MAY be intentional, there's a problem . Loose interpretations lead to rule abuse for the min/ max munchkins.
I'm not going to waste a feat on my Cleric for Crossbow Expert in any case and probably not for any caster I make either.
I wouldn't either. You can just use Touch or single-target Save spells for opportunity attacks with War Caster. Just saying it would be possible. Don't think I'd ever bother dumping two feats on the combination.
Oh definitely I wouldn't recommend Crossbow Expert for a spellcaster. You'd be taking it solely to overcome the disadvantage in melee for ranged spells - and nothing else. It might come up once or twice in a single session when you could simply use a melee spell instead. The combination is certainly no (Polearm Master + Sentinel) that's for sure.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I can think of one instance where I might take Crossbow Expert as a spellcaster, but not with the intent of using it alongside Warcaster.
A warlock geared towards Eldritch Blast who is also tanky or finds themselves in Melee range a lot could benefit greatly from Crossbow Expert.
But it is intentional. The game designers have specifically mentioned how it was intentional, how they designed the Feat so that it would be useful for something besides shooting crossbows, to avoid such a narrow focus for the investment. I understand how it might look like it's not, and how it's easy to overlook, and how anybody might doubt that it was, in fact, the intention... but the game designers have come out and outright said it was intentional. Moreover, the rules don't tend to use ambiguous wording. They tend to be pretty clear, if not obviously so. Rules that talk about "attacks" really mean "attacks", and not "melee attacks" (a specific type of attack), nor "damaging actions" (which would only be attacks if they involve an attack roll... Magic Missile, for example, is not an attack). They're not perfectly so, and therefore there are errata. They're also not obviously so ("what? Why would being good with crossbows mean I'm better at targeting spells?!"), and therefore there is Sage Advice. (Btw, the "Sage Advice Compendium" is official, as official as the PHB or the DMG.)
Sage Advice isn't official like the 3 Core Rulebooks. Nothing beyond them is. Per Jeremy Crawford only a few months ago:
The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books. Those rules appear in a shorter form in products like the Starter Set and the free Basic Rules. Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional.
Your DM decides how to use those rules in service to your group's fun. #DnD https://twitter.com/DaveWil33/status/1128447878190518273 …
In this instance, no they don't. The wording is EXPLICIT that Crossbow Expert applies to spells. You're just hung up on the name of the feat. If the feat wasn't called that, I don't think you'd be having this problem.