Combat Is for Enemies. 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.
Correct, you are referring to rules that do not apply to this scenario
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> Yes. I can attack them. -> War Caster’s Reactive Spell can be substituted for the Attack of Opportunity.
Versus..
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> No. I can’t attack them. War Caster’s Reactive Spell can’t be substituted for a nonexistent attack.
Combat Is for Enemies. 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.
Correct, you are referring to rules that do not apply to this scenario
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> Yes. I can attack them. -> War Caster’s Reactive Spell can be substituted for the Attack of Opportunity.
Versus..
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> No. I can’t attack them. War Caster’s Reactive Spell can’t be substituted for a nonexistent attack.
Why?
If that flow chart is beyond your comprehension you are beyond my help.
Combat Is for Enemies. 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.
Correct, you are referring to rules that do not apply to this scenario
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> Yes. I can attack them. -> War Caster’s Reactive Spell can be substituted for the Attack of Opportunity.
Versus..
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> No. I can’t attack them. War Caster’s Reactive Spell can’t be substituted for a nonexistent attack.
Why?
If that flow chart is beyond your comprehension you are beyond my help.
I am asking for a rule behind that flow chart
You mean the rule two messages above it in the quote chain? That rule.
"While holding this rod, you gain a +3 bonus to spell attack to the saving throw DCs of you Warlock spell.
In ADDITION, you can regain ONE spell slot as a Magic action while HOLDING the rod. You CAN'T USE this property again unti you finish Long Rest."
Even if you bend the rules to a attunement with three Rods you need one free hand to launch the spell, and you need to hold the rod, so you can ony use one rod, not three
More on that, t you can only use the Rod property one time, doesn't matter if come from other Rods
And, finally, HOW he has 3 very rare rods?
I had I think
4 legendary
7 very rare
10 rare
15 uncommon
25 common
When a character is hauling around more magic items than the Tomb of Horrors, they're already brokenly powerful. Feats don't enter into it at all, especially if you give them three copies of the same item at different power levels and allow them to use all of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Combat Is for Enemies. 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.
Correct, you are referring to rules that do not apply to this scenario
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> Yes. I can attack them. -> War Caster’s Reactive Spell can be substituted for the Attack of Opportunity.
Versus..
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> No. I can’t attack them. War Caster’s Reactive Spell can’t be substituted for a nonexistent attack.
Why?
If that flow chart is beyond your comprehension you are beyond my help.
I am asking for a rule behind that flow chart
You mean the rule two messages above it in the quote chain? That rule.
That rule is about starting combat, I am talking about in combat
The rule applies to combat. It does not stop once combat begins. You're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
"While holding this rod, you gain a +3 bonus to spell attack to the saving throw DCs of you Warlock spell.
In ADDITION, you can regain ONE spell slot as a Magic action while HOLDING the rod. You CAN'T USE this property again unti you finish Long Rest."
Even if you bend the rules to a attunement with three Rods you need one free hand to launch the spell, and you need to hold the rod, so you can ony use one rod, not three
More on that, t you can only use the Rod property one time, doesn't matter if come from other Rods
And, finally, HOW he has 3 very rare rods?
I had I think
4 legendary
7 very rare
10 rare
15 uncommon
25 common
When a character is hauling around more magic items than the Tomb of Horrors, they're already brokenly powerful. Feats don't enter into it at all, especially if you give them three copies of the same item at different power levels and allow them to use all of them.
I said this was broken. Did you not see that?
Yeah, and you also tried to claim that the War Caster feat was broken. That's the issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"While holding this rod, you gain a +3 bonus to spell attack to the saving throw DCs of you Warlock spell.
In ADDITION, you can regain ONE spell slot as a Magic action while HOLDING the rod. You CAN'T USE this property again unti you finish Long Rest."
Even if you bend the rules to a attunement with three Rods you need one free hand to launch the spell, and you need to hold the rod, so you can ony use one rod, not three
More on that, t you can only use the Rod property one time, doesn't matter if come from other Rods
And, finally, HOW he has 3 very rare rods?
I had I think
4 legendary
7 very rare
10 rare
15 uncommon
25 common
When a character is hauling around more magic items than the Tomb of Horrors, they're already brokenly powerful. Feats don't enter into it at all, especially if you give them three copies of the same item at different power levels and allow them to use all of them.
I said this was broken. Did you not see that?
Yeah, and you also tried to claim that the War Caster feat was broken. That's the issue.
And I gave a good reason why
No, because your example was a character that was completely broken already, the feat had nothing to do with it. If the character's broken without the feat, and they are, then you can't honestly evaluate whether or not the feat itself is broken. And attempting to rules lawyer is usually seen as an indication that someone realizes that the rules don't allow something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Warcaster is broken because pretty much any spell is cast with an action
No one told you to proc an op attack. Possibly giving a free reaction to a 9th level caster was a poor decision. The feature being "broken" is not a strong conclusion.
War Caster is strong because of concentration and somatic components aid. My Cleric with War Caster gets to use the op attack feature maybe once every 2-3 sessions & that's wading into melee. My Wizard & Warlock have used it maybe twice in 20 levels each.
The fact that the character was broken is irrelevant, but the point I made is not.
Warcaster is broken because pretty much any spell is cast with an action
False. The chararcter was broken on multiple levels (Tier IV is inherently unbalanced, the character had too many magic items, and they were using an item in a way that's against RAW- a warlock's mystic arcanum do not use spell slots). As such, it's not a valid demonstration of the feat being OP because the overwhelming majority of players won't have any of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> Yes. I can attack them. -> War Caster’s Reactive Spell can be substituted for the Attack of Opportunity.
Versus..
A creature leaves my reach, provoking an opportunity attack. -> Are they an enemy? -> No. I can’t attack them. War Caster’s Reactive Spell can’t be substituted for a nonexistent attack.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
If that flow chart is beyond your comprehension you are beyond my help.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
You mean the rule two messages above it in the quote chain? That rule.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
When a character is hauling around more magic items than the Tomb of Horrors, they're already brokenly powerful. Feats don't enter into it at all, especially if you give them three copies of the same item at different power levels and allow them to use all of them.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The rule applies to combat. It does not stop once combat begins. You're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah, and you also tried to claim that the War Caster feat was broken. That's the issue.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Are you in combat? Yes
Are combat rules for dealing with enemies? Yes
Periodt. Full stop.
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
One of the main concern from previous iterations was gaining advantages by using combat abilities on non-threatening targets to activate them.
The classic bag of rats and great cleave for example.
I think that is what this passage is trying to prevent.
There have been plenty of times in games where my group have used AoOs on other players
Mind controlled then grapple or tripped to prevent them from attacking the wrong target.
Tripped so they don't run far when frightened.
Possessed by a ghost
Breaking multiple people out of Hypnotic Pattern
Pretending to be enemies
And the classic fireball me I can take it! I have a great Dex save (rolls nat 1)
Not all of these are Attacks or AoOs but they do violate that interpretation.
No, because your example was a character that was completely broken already, the feat had nothing to do with it. If the character's broken without the feat, and they are, then you can't honestly evaluate whether or not the feat itself is broken. And attempting to rules lawyer is usually seen as an indication that someone realizes that the rules don't allow something.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No one told you to proc an op attack. Possibly giving a free reaction to a 9th level caster was a poor decision. The feature being "broken" is not a strong conclusion.
War Caster is strong because of concentration and somatic components aid. My Cleric with War Caster gets to use the op attack feature maybe once every 2-3 sessions & that's wading into melee. My Wizard & Warlock have used it maybe twice in 20 levels each.
False. The chararcter was broken on multiple levels (Tier IV is inherently unbalanced, the character had too many magic items, and they were using an item in a way that's against RAW- a warlock's mystic arcanum do not use spell slots). As such, it's not a valid demonstration of the feat being OP because the overwhelming majority of players won't have any of that.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.