1 lv Cleric, 4 lv Sorcerer 1. my turn, I cast bless on my allies and choose the ranger to use his reaction to attack an enemy of my choice. He chooses weather or not to use it if he has it. end my turn. 2. Ally next to me takes an attack, uses deflect. 3. Adjacent enemy without the sentinel feat, moves out of my threat range (with or without a disengage action) 4. War caster triggers, using my reaction 5. I cast enhance ability, on the triggering enemy, twin the spell targeting an ally. 6. If I forget that my ally has used his reaction and twin enhance ability on to him, VoA fails. But I use twin spelled enhance ability on the rouge instead 7. profit
In this scenario, I use one action(bless), one reaction modified by warcaster (enhance ability), half my sorcerer points(twinned spell), the rangers reaction, and the rouges reaction.
all technically legal, if unintended, and totally within the DM's prerogative to say no **** all that bullshit not on my rock.
I'm not saying I want it to work this way or it should work this way. Right now I'm fixated on finding an in rules reason it shouldn't work.
So, first, I’m not sure what the benefit of all this is. You’ve enhanced the ability of an enemy and an ally. But considering how rare skill checks are in combat — they happen, sure, but they’re rare — what was the point of that? A bad guy and a good guy get advantage on athletics rolls? The good guy gets to take an OA that they’d already be able to take?
Beyond that, war caster does not trigger if the enemy uses disengage. And the spell, even twinned, has a range of touch, seems like there’s a lot of people standing next you in this scenario.
Right now I'm fixated on finding an in rules reason it shouldn't work.
The moment you upcast a spell so that it has multiple targets, it's no longer eligible for War Caster
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.
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)
It’s an order cleric power. If you cast a spell with a spell slot that targets an ally, you can allow that ally to use their reaction to make a weapon attack.
Sentinel makes it so that it doesn't matter if they use disengage unless they also have sentinel.
From what I understand attacks of opportunity interrupt movement, and then the sentinel feat reduces their movement to zero. If the attack of opportunity reads that it interrupts movement and then a separate feat reads that it reduces movement to zero in my mind the only way to interpret that is the attack of opportunity happens before the movement takes place.
The idea is to get off multiple procs of voice of authority in a round to help my allies get off as many attacks as we can in a round, if they don't have another means of using their reaction
Ah. Okay. I guess thats a valid interpretation. I guess I figured as long as you start with a valid spell you could use the sorcerer's abilities to satisfy those requirements and then get off an extra instance of a single target spell. I feel like in general that makes the sorcerer a lot less special but I suppose it's interpreted that way to prevent these exact situations. Thank you
Ah. Okay. I guess thats a valid interpretation. I guess I figured as long as you start with a valid spell you could use the sorcerer's abilities to satisfy those requirements and then get off an extra instance of a single target spell. I feel like in general that makes the sorcerer a lot less special but I suppose it's interpreted that way to prevent these exact situations. Thank you
Yeah, even in 2014, Twinned spell specified it was targeting a second creature with the same spell, so it wouldn't work with War Caster
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)
1 lv Cleric, 4 lv Sorcerer 1. my turn, I cast bless on my allies and choose the ranger to use his reaction to attack an enemy of my choice. He chooses weather or not to use it if he has it. end my turn. 2. Ally next to me takes an attack, uses deflect. 3. Adjacent enemy without the sentinel feat, moves out of my threat range (with or without a disengage action) 4. War caster triggers, using my reaction 5. I cast enhance ability, on the triggering enemy, twin the spell targeting an ally. 6. If I forget that my ally has used his reaction and twin enhance ability on to him, VoA fails. But I use twin spelled enhance ability on the rouge instead 7. profit
all technically legal
No it's not. Step 5 is illegal since an Warcaster specifies the spell must only target one creature - the one triggering the AoO (which it does not if you Twin it). Step 3 is also slightly illegal because if the enemies takes the Disengage action it does not provoke an AoO therefore does not trigger Warcaster.
Aside: Sentinel only reduces an enemy's speed to 0 if you hit them with an attack of opportunity, using Warcaster replaces the AoO with a spell so does not reduce the enemy's speed to 0.
1 lv Cleric, 4 lv Sorcerer 1. my turn, I cast bless on my allies and choose the ranger to use his reaction to attack an enemy of my choice. He chooses weather or not to use it if he has it. end my turn. 2. Ally next to me takes an attack, uses deflect. 3. Adjacent enemy without the sentinel feat, moves out of my threat range (with or without a disengage action) 4. War caster triggers, using my reaction 5. I cast enhance ability, on the triggering enemy, twin the spell targeting an ally. 6. If I forget that my ally has used his reaction and twin enhance ability on to him, VoA fails. But I use twin spelled enhance ability on the rouge instead 7. profit
all technically legal
No it's not. Step 5 is illegal since an Warcaster specifies the spell must only target one creature - the one triggering the AoO (which it does not if you Twin it). Step 3 is also slightly illegal because if the enemies takes the Disengage action it does not provoke an AoO therefore does not trigger Warcaster.
Aside: Sentinel only reduces an enemy's speed to 0 if you hit them with an attack of opportunity, using Warcaster replaces the AoO with a spell so does not reduce the enemy's speed to 0.
Please read the rules properly.
Thanks for the extra answers but AntonSirius already straightened it out for me.
I would like to point out that I never said that using a spell instead of an AoO would reduce their speed to 0, I only described what Sentinel does. I am aware that the spell replaced the AoO and it does not count as one. The only feature I cared about was this one:
Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
And even if I had it wouldn't nave necessitated the snide remark. It's ok though. We all have moments that are less than our best.
1 lv Cleric, 4 lv Sorcerer
1. my turn, I cast bless on my allies and choose the ranger to use his reaction to attack an enemy of my choice. He chooses weather or not to use it if he has it. end my turn.
2. Ally next to me takes an attack, uses deflect.
3. Adjacent enemy without the sentinel feat, moves out of my threat range (with or without a disengage action)
4. War caster triggers, using my reaction
5. I cast enhance ability, on the triggering enemy, twin the spell targeting an ally.
6. If I forget that my ally has used his reaction and twin enhance ability on to him, VoA fails. But I use twin spelled enhance ability on the rouge instead
7. profit
In this scenario, I use one action(bless), one reaction modified by warcaster (enhance ability), half my sorcerer points(twinned spell), the rangers reaction, and the rouges reaction.
all technically legal, if unintended, and totally within the DM's prerogative to say no **** all that bullshit not on my rock.
I'm not saying I want it to work this way or it should work this way. Right now I'm fixated on finding an in rules reason it shouldn't work.
So, first, I’m not sure what the benefit of all this is. You’ve enhanced the ability of an enemy and an ally. But considering how rare skill checks are in combat — they happen, sure, but they’re rare — what was the point of that? A bad guy and a good guy get advantage on athletics rolls? The good guy gets to take an OA that they’d already be able to take?
Beyond that, war caster does not trigger if the enemy uses disengage. And the spell, even twinned, has a range of touch, seems like there’s a lot of people standing next you in this scenario.
The moment you upcast a spell so that it has multiple targets, it's no longer eligible for 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)
It’s an order cleric power. If you cast a spell with a spell slot that targets an ally, you can allow that ally to use their reaction to make a weapon attack.
My mistake I should have specified 2014 rules.
Sentinel makes it so that it doesn't matter if they use disengage unless they also have sentinel.
From what I understand attacks of opportunity interrupt movement, and then the sentinel feat reduces their movement to zero. If the attack of opportunity reads that it interrupts movement and then a separate feat reads that it reduces movement to zero in my mind the only way to interpret that is the attack of opportunity happens before the movement takes place.
The idea is to get off multiple procs of voice of authority in a round to help my allies get off as many attacks as we can in a round, if they don't have another means of using their reaction
Ah. Okay. I guess thats a valid interpretation. I guess I figured as long as you start with a valid spell you could use the sorcerer's abilities to satisfy those requirements and then get off an extra instance of a single target spell. I feel like in general that makes the sorcerer a lot less special but I suppose it's interpreted that way to prevent these exact situations. Thank you
Yeah, even in 2014, Twinned spell specified it was targeting a second creature with the same spell, so it wouldn't work with 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)
No it's not. Step 5 is illegal since an Warcaster specifies the spell must only target one creature - the one triggering the AoO (which it does not if you Twin it). Step 3 is also slightly illegal because if the enemies takes the Disengage action it does not provoke an AoO therefore does not trigger Warcaster.
Aside: Sentinel only reduces an enemy's speed to 0 if you hit them with an attack of opportunity, using Warcaster replaces the AoO with a spell so does not reduce the enemy's speed to 0.
Please read the rules properly.
I'd like to add that the 2014 Sentinel doesn't interact with War Caster.
PS. Well, it doesn't interact under the 2024 rules either.
EDIT: oops, I didn't see Agilemind's last edit, sorry!
Thanks for the extra answers but AntonSirius already straightened it out for me.
I would like to point out that I never said that using a spell instead of an AoO would reduce their speed to 0, I only described what Sentinel does. I am aware that the spell replaced the AoO and it does not count as one. The only feature I cared about was this one:
And even if I had it wouldn't nave necessitated the snide remark. It's ok though. We all have moments that are less than our best.