I've got a question about how PAM and Warcaster interact. For the sake of the example, let's say that I am an Eldritch Knight fighter with PAM and warcaster. I do /not/ have spell sniper. My cantrips are booming blade and firebolt. I'm using a Halberd, with a reach of 10.
PAM allows me to make an OA when an enemy enters my reach. So, a hypothetical orc is charging me. At 10ft range, I am now eligible for an OA. Warcaster allows me to cast a spell in place of an OA. Booming blade only has a range of 5, so I may /not/ cast booming blade as an OA, because the OA is at 10 ft, not 5. Can I cast firebolt? RAW, I see no reason why not. RAI seems a lot more shady. Could I cast a leveled spell, such Mind Spike? Again, seems OK RAW, not quite as OK RAI.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
RAWhateveryouwannacallit, yes. Warcaster doesn't let you "cast a spell using a weapon you're wielding" as an OA, it just lets you "cast a spell at the creature." So if it is (1) a spell, and (2) targets that creature, you're golden (so long as you've satisfied other spellcasting requirements, such as (3) within range, (4) with appropriate components, and (5) spell slots, etc.), you're golden. Hold Person? Healing Word? Fire Bolt? Charm Person? Sure why not.
PAM+WC is a good defensive feat combo for a caster, since it gives them a chance to potentially remove/stun/push/teleport/whatever an enemy as it rushes them.
Conversely, would warcaster disallow GFB as an OA since it damages two targets? Warcaster says that it allows a spell that /only/ targets the creature that provoked. While I read that as GFB only targets the provoking creature, spells like chaos bolt are not eligible to be twinned because it /can/ spike to another target. Would GFB be ineligible for OA use for similar reasons?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Conversely, would warcaster disallow GFB as an OA since it damages two targets? Warcaster says that it allows a spell that /only/ targets the creature that provoked. While I read that as GFB only targets the provoking creature, spells like chaos bolt are not eligible to be twinned because it /can/ spike to another target. Would GFB be ineligible for OA use for similar reasons?
The only restrictions on what spells may be cast with War Caster on a Reaction are: casting time of 1 action, spell targets only that creature (the one which provoked the OA). RAW & RAI both say Fire Bolt is fine, but Green-Flame Blade is allowed only when there is no possible secondary target. If there's another (hostile) creature within 5 feet of the target, GFB is 100% out the window. It's a little less restrictive than Twinned Spell, but practically your mileage may vary.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
but Green-Flame Blade is allowed only when there is no possible secondary target. If there's another (hostile) creature within 5 feet of the target, GFB is 100% out the window. It's a little less restrictive than Twinned Spell, but practically your mileage may vary.
I may be wrong, don’t believe that’s true. Do you have a source for that ruling anywhere?
It gets back to the old Ice Knife problem, and whether "target" is the target of the spell (the one character you make an attack against with an Ice Knife or a Green-Flame Blade), or if "target" also includes subsequent creatures impacted by the spell effect. I for one take the interpretation that features which limit things to a spell that "targets" one creature are talking about the first meaning, reasonable minds could differ, but there isn't any RAW language you're going to find to clear that up one way or the other. DM is going to have to make a RAI or RAF interpretation for that.
Hold on, I'll try to dig it up. FYI, I agree it should follow the same concept as Twinned Spell, but I know I've read both Crawford & Mearls say it doesn't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Okay, here's one of the JC tweets. Yes, not an official ruling, but informative.
The 3rd benefit of War Caster requires you to target only the moving creature. Eldritch blast works as long as all the beams target it. #DnD
The thing about War Caster vs Twinned Spell restrictions is specific, meaningful wording. Twinned Spell restricts you to spells that cannot possibly target any other creatures. War Caster only restricts you to spells that actuallydo target only the creature which provoked the OA. Anything that has a casting time of 1 action, and only targets the single creature in context, is eligible for use with War Caster.
GFB is fine so long as it actually targets only the single creature.
[edit] and unlike Fireball, you aren't a target yourself.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That tweet doesn't even address the situation presented by Green-Flame Blade, though. Eldritch Blast creates some number of blasts, each of which seperately target a creature. "Make a ranged spell attack against the target. ... The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones." Creature A, B, C, etc. are all "targets".
Green-Flame Blade (and other similar spells like Ice Knife are different. "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the targetsuffers the attack’s normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier." Creature A is a "target," but Creature B is never called a target, only "the second creature." I'm aware of no rule text that would transform "the second creature" into a "target" of the spell.
RAWhateveryouwannacallit, yes. Warcaster doesn't let you "cast a spell using a weapon you're wielding" as an OA, it just lets you "cast a spell at the creature." So if it is (1) a spell, and (2) targets that creature, you're golden (so long as you've satisfied other spellcasting requirements, such as (3) within range, (4) with appropriate components, and (5) spell slots, etc.), you're golden. Hold Person? Healing Word? Fire Bolt? Charm Person? Sure why not.
PAM+WC is a good defensive feat combo for a caster, since it gives them a chance to potentially remove/stun/push/teleport/whatever an enemy as it rushes them.
Healing Word wouldn't be eligible due to the bonus action. You probably wouldn't want to cast it or Cure Wounds on an enemy unless some mechanic is in place to allow healing magic to damage instead. Teleportation spells won't usually target the provoking creature, but could be an effective way to move them away from you and potentially get some falling damage.
There is some grey area for the trigger to be within 5 ft of you while wielding a reach weapon due to unarmed strikes. I think it's cheesy, but you can ask your DM about it. I'm sure that you could research the topic to find the relevant support for it (I think it's a JC tweet or sage advice that says something about any relevant reaches you may have).
Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it.
I would argue that RAW, your weapon reach for PAM is only used when you’re using that weapon to attack. If you’re using an OA and use Firebolt, technically you’re not using the Polearm anymore, and reach no longer applies.
Edit: and because of wording of PAM, you would still get an OA spell if they entered your 5ft reach.
Healing Word wouldn't be eligible due to the bonus action. You probably wouldn't want to cast it or Cure Wounds on an enemy unless some mechanic is in place to allow healing magic to damage instead. Teleportation spells won't usually target the provoking creature, but could be an effective way to move them away from you and potentially get some falling damage.
I had missed the "casting time of 1 action" part of War Caster. You are correct, no Bonus Action spells allowed.
There is some grey area for the trigger to be within 5 ft of you while wielding a reach weapon due to unarmed strikes. I think it's cheesy, but you can ask your DM about it. I'm sure that you could research the topic to find the relevant support for it (I think it's a JC tweet or sage advice that says something about any relevant reaches you may have).
Yeah, this goes back to the can-of-worms question of whether you as a character have one "reach", or whether you have a seperate "reach" for each and every weapon you are wielding, such as when you're Two Weapon Fighting with a 10-foot Whip and a 5-foot Dagger, or when wielding a 10-foot polearm and your 5-foot Unarmed Strikes. I am in the camp that you can have multiple reaches, but it's a messy question that doesn't have clear cut answers.
Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it.
I would argue that RAW, your weapon reach for PAM is only used when you’re using that weapon to attack. If you’re using an OA and use Firebolt, technically you’re not using the Polearm anymore, and reach no longer applies.
Edit: and because of wording of PAM, you would still get an OA spell if they entered your 5ft reach.
Spells don't have "reach", so even when you're using Booming Blade as a PAM+WC opportunity attack, its "range" remains 5 (unless you've taken Spell Sniper), even if somehow one could consider BB to have a "reach" score of 10 or whatever. Not sure if that was where you were going with that....
Healing Word wouldn't be eligible due to the bonus action. You probably wouldn't want to cast it or Cure Wounds on an enemy unless some mechanic is in place to allow healing magic to damage instead. Teleportation spells won't usually target the provoking creature, but could be an effective way to move them away from you and potentially get some falling damage.
I had missed the "casting time of 1 action" part of War Caster. You are correct, no Bonus Action spells allowed.
There is some grey area for the trigger to be within 5 ft of you while wielding a reach weapon due to unarmed strikes. I think it's cheesy, but you can ask your DM about it. I'm sure that you could research the topic to find the relevant support for it (I think it's a JC tweet or sage advice that says something about any relevant reaches you may have).
Yeah, this goes back to the can-of-worms question of whether you as a character have one "reach", or whether you have a seperate "reach" for each and every weapon you are wielding, such as when you're Two Weapon Fighting with a 10-foot Whip and a 5-foot Dagger, or when wielding a 10-foot polearm and your 5-foot Unarmed Strikes. I am in the camp that you can have multiple reaches, but it's a messy question that doesn't have clear cut answers.
Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it.
I would argue that RAW, your weapon reach for PAM is only used when you’re using that weapon to attack. If you’re using an OA and use Firebolt, technically you’re not using the Polearm anymore, and reach no longer applies.
Edit: and because of wording of PAM, you would still get an OA spell if they entered your 5ft reach.
Spells don't have "reach", so even when you're using Booming Blade as a PAM+WC opportunity attack, its "range" remains 5 (unless you've taken Spell Sniper), even if somehow one could consider BB to have a "reach" score of 10 or whatever. Not sure if that was where you were going with that....
I was more thinking the Firebolt example for when they hit 10ft away.
Yeah, there's still a lot of grey areas, but the point is that War Caster is not as restrictive as Twinned Spell. We don't need any rulings to see it is true by the RAW.
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, 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 onlythat creature.
When you cast a spell that targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self, you can spend a number of sorcery points equal to the spell’s level to target a second creature in range with the same spell (1 sorcery point if the spell is a cantrip).
To be eligible, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level. For example, magic missile and scorching ray aren’t eligible, but ray of frost and chromatic orb are.
Only Twinned Spell has a restriction preventing spells capable of targeting more than one creature. War Caster merely has a restriction preventing spells that actually would target more than one creature in specific context of gameplay.
Green-Flame Blade is perfectly legal to use with War Caster, so long as there is not another target within 5 feet of it. That's RAW; no ruling necessary to see that.
Now if we wanted to get into RAI, one could argue that GFB is eligible for War Caster in any-and-all instances, regardless of other creatures.
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.
It's not an ultimatum that GFB targets a secondary creature. We are free to dictate how our spells are used within the context of the system & spell details. I see no reason why "no secondary target" wouldn't be a valid choice here, but I would not personally argue that it's RAW to that extent.. RAI, maybe.
[edit]
And here's Mike Mearls agreeing with that assumption.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The second creature. Is. Not. Targeted. You’re missing the point, even when you burn a second creature with GFB, you don’t target that creature to do so.
Uh.. yes, they are? What is your evidence for such an assumption? Any creature/object that is affected by a spell is a target. That's literally the whole reason Ice Knife is not eligible for use with Twinned Spell. The secondary effect targets all creatures within 5 feet for the explosion.
[edit] I guess I don't understand what your point is here. Are you saying that GFB should always be eligible for War Caster, regardless of whether it affects another creature?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Uh.. yes, they are? What is your evidence for such an assumption? Any creature/object that is affected by a spell is a target. That's literally the whole reason Ice Knife is not eligible for use with Twinned Spell. The secondary effect targets all creatures within 5 feet for the explosion.
Can you find language that SAYS any creature effected by a spell is a target? Because that’s not how the Spellcasting section defines the term, and playing that way makes Entangle a spell that might “target only one creature,” so you sure you want to lean into that interpretation?
“A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
That language tells us that the “target” is the creature, object, or point of origin” the spell is cast at. For GFB, that’s one creature you make a melee attack against. The “second creature” is never called a target by the spell description, and even if they were, they’re a target of the spell’s subsequent effect, not of the spell’s casting.
I've got a question about how PAM and Warcaster interact. For the sake of the example, let's say that I am an Eldritch Knight fighter with PAM and warcaster. I do /not/ have spell sniper. My cantrips are booming blade and firebolt. I'm using a Halberd, with a reach of 10.
PAM allows me to make an OA when an enemy enters my reach. So, a hypothetical orc is charging me. At 10ft range, I am now eligible for an OA. Warcaster allows me to cast a spell in place of an OA. Booming blade only has a range of 5, so I may /not/ cast booming blade as an OA, because the OA is at 10 ft, not 5. Can I cast firebolt? RAW, I see no reason why not. RAI seems a lot more shady. Could I cast a leveled spell, such Mind Spike? Again, seems OK RAW, not quite as OK RAI.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
RAW, yeah.
RAI, 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I asked the same question a while back. The people here agreed with us - you are correct, RAW it works, but it is not in the spirit of the rules.
Basically, ask your DM.
RAWhateveryouwannacallit, yes. Warcaster doesn't let you "cast a spell using a weapon you're wielding" as an OA, it just lets you "cast a spell at the creature." So if it is (1) a spell, and (2) targets that creature, you're golden (so long as you've satisfied other spellcasting requirements, such as (3) within range, (4) with appropriate components, and (5) spell slots, etc.), you're golden. Hold Person? Healing Word? Fire Bolt? Charm Person? Sure why not.
PAM+WC is a good defensive feat combo for a caster, since it gives them a chance to potentially remove/stun/push/teleport/whatever an enemy as it rushes them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Conversely, would warcaster disallow GFB as an OA since it damages two targets? Warcaster says that it allows a spell that /only/ targets the creature that provoked. While I read that as GFB only targets the provoking creature, spells like chaos bolt are not eligible to be twinned because it /can/ spike to another target. Would GFB be ineligible for OA use for similar reasons?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The only restrictions on what spells may be cast with War Caster on a Reaction are: casting time of 1 action, spell targets only that creature (the one which provoked the OA). RAW & RAI both say Fire Bolt is fine, but Green-Flame Blade is allowed only when there is no possible secondary target. If there's another (hostile) creature within 5 feet of the target, GFB is 100% out the window. It's a little less restrictive than Twinned Spell, but practically your mileage may vary.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I may be wrong, don’t believe that’s true. Do you have a source for that ruling anywhere?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, that's not true.
It gets back to the old Ice Knife problem, and whether "target" is the target of the spell (the one character you make an attack against with an Ice Knife or a Green-Flame Blade), or if "target" also includes subsequent creatures impacted by the spell effect. I for one take the interpretation that features which limit things to a spell that "targets" one creature are talking about the first meaning, reasonable minds could differ, but there isn't any RAW language you're going to find to clear that up one way or the other. DM is going to have to make a RAI or RAF interpretation for that.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Hold on, I'll try to dig it up. FYI, I agree it should follow the same concept as Twinned Spell, but I know I've read both Crawford & Mearls say it doesn't.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Okay, here's one of the JC tweets. Yes, not an official ruling, but informative.
The thing about War Caster vs Twinned Spell restrictions is specific, meaningful wording. Twinned Spell restricts you to spells that cannot possibly target any other creatures. War Caster only restricts you to spells that actually do target only the creature which provoked the OA. Anything that has a casting time of 1 action, and only targets the single creature in context, is eligible for use with War Caster.
GFB is fine so long as it actually targets only the single creature.
[edit] and unlike Fireball, you aren't a target yourself.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That tweet doesn't even address the situation presented by Green-Flame Blade, though. Eldritch Blast creates some number of blasts, each of which seperately target a creature. "Make a ranged spell attack against the target. ... The spell creates more than one beam when you reach higher levels: two beams at 5th level, three beams at 11th level, and four beams at 17th level. You can direct the beams at the same target or at different ones." Creature A, B, C, etc. are all "targets".
Green-Flame Blade (and other similar spells like Ice Knife are different. "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack’s normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier." Creature A is a "target," but Creature B is never called a target, only "the second creature." I'm aware of no rule text that would transform "the second creature" into a "target" of the spell.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Healing Word wouldn't be eligible due to the bonus action. You probably wouldn't want to cast it or Cure Wounds on an enemy unless some mechanic is in place to allow healing magic to damage instead. Teleportation spells won't usually target the provoking creature, but could be an effective way to move them away from you and potentially get some falling damage.
There is some grey area for the trigger to be within 5 ft of you while wielding a reach weapon due to unarmed strikes. I think it's cheesy, but you can ask your DM about it. I'm sure that you could research the topic to find the relevant support for it (I think it's a JC tweet or sage advice that says something about any relevant reaches you may have).
I would argue that RAW, your weapon reach for PAM is only used when you’re using that weapon to attack. If you’re using an OA and use Firebolt, technically you’re not using the Polearm anymore, and reach no longer applies.
Edit: and because of wording of PAM, you would still get an OA spell if they entered your 5ft reach.
I had missed the "casting time of 1 action" part of War Caster. You are correct, no Bonus Action spells allowed.
Yeah, this goes back to the can-of-worms question of whether you as a character have one "reach", or whether you have a seperate "reach" for each and every weapon you are wielding, such as when you're Two Weapon Fighting with a 10-foot Whip and a 5-foot Dagger, or when wielding a 10-foot polearm and your 5-foot Unarmed Strikes. I am in the camp that you can have multiple reaches, but it's a messy question that doesn't have clear cut answers.
Spells don't have "reach", so even when you're using Booming Blade as a PAM+WC opportunity attack, its "range" remains 5 (unless you've taken Spell Sniper), even if somehow one could consider BB to have a "reach" score of 10 or whatever. Not sure if that was where you were going with that....
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I was more thinking the Firebolt example for when they hit 10ft away.
Yeah, there's still a lot of grey areas, but the point is that War Caster is not as restrictive as Twinned Spell. We don't need any rulings to see it is true by the RAW.
Only Twinned Spell has a restriction preventing spells capable of targeting more than one creature. War Caster merely has a restriction preventing spells that actually would target more than one creature in specific context of gameplay.
Green-Flame Blade is perfectly legal to use with War Caster, so long as there is not another target within 5 feet of it. That's RAW; no ruling necessary to see that.
Now if we wanted to get into RAI, one could argue that GFB is eligible for War Caster in any-and-all instances, regardless of other creatures.
It's not an ultimatum that GFB targets a secondary creature. We are free to dictate how our spells are used within the context of the system & spell details. I see no reason why "no secondary target" wouldn't be a valid choice here, but I would not personally argue that it's RAW to that extent.. RAI, maybe.
[edit]
And here's Mike Mearls agreeing with that assumption.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The second creature. Is. Not. Targeted. You’re missing the point, even when you burn a second creature with GFB, you don’t target that creature to do so.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Uh.. yes, they are? What is your evidence for such an assumption? Any creature/object that is affected by a spell is a target. That's literally the whole reason Ice Knife is not eligible for use with Twinned Spell. The secondary effect targets all creatures within 5 feet for the explosion.
[edit] I guess I don't understand what your point is here. Are you saying that GFB should always be eligible for War Caster, regardless of whether it affects another creature?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Yup
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Can you find language that SAYS any creature effected by a spell is a target? Because that’s not how the Spellcasting section defines the term, and playing that way makes Entangle a spell that might “target only one creature,” so you sure you want to lean into that interpretation?
“A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).”
That language tells us that the “target” is the creature, object, or point of origin” the spell is cast at. For GFB, that’s one creature you make a melee attack against. The “second creature” is never called a target by the spell description, and even if they were, they’re a target of the spell’s subsequent effect, not of the spell’s casting.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.