Allies triggering OAs

[Tenmujiin]

Can allies trigger opportunity attacks? If they can, the feat war-caster lets you cast a spell that targets only them, this would include (as a lv4 cleric):

Cantrips

Guidance (that is rather powerful when it doesn't cost an action)
Resistance


1st level spells

Bless (if you only target them)
Cure Wounds
Protection from Good and Evil
Shield of Faith



2nd level spells

Aid (again, if you forgo targeting any other allies)
Enhance Ability
Lesser Restoration
Protection from Poison
Warding Bond (could be useful to allow a low health ally to escape the fight by tanking 1/2 the OA damage he takes)


Also, while looking through 1st and 2nd level cleric spells I noticed that Spiritual Weapon doesn't take concentration and potentially gives 11d8+(11d8 per 2 spell levels) over it's duration (assuming the fight goes 10 rounds and using your bonus action each round admittedly) does that spell seem strong to anyone else?

[Eslin]

Just reread, and yeah, absolutely works by the rules. For the most part you don't make attacks of opportunity against your allies, but that doesn't mean you're not able to, they're just as vulnerable as an enemy would be. Great way to use your reaction to buff allies, I love it.

Spiritual weapon wise, fights rarely last a full minute and it uses your bonus action every turn for 1d8 per two spell levels + wis mod damage. For contrast, at level 11 when it's using up your only highest level slot for the day you're getting 18.5 damage, while the paladin is using his bonus action to do 14 damage at better attack and no spell investment at all. It's a good spell, but it has an opportunity and damage wise it's not ridiculous.

[Tenmujiin]

Yea, I found it rather amusing that you can hit allies with OA spells even if they are beneficial ones. If it does work then I guess that makes war-caster the better choice (over resilient(con)) for my cleric since it fits his fluff better too.

For a cleric though it seems like one of his most damaging spells in a medium to long fight since he wont be using his bonus actions anyway.

[LtDarien]

I would say no.

Opportunity Attack and War Caster both refer to "hostile" creatures. Allies are not hostile.

[Tenmujiin]

I would say no.

Opportunity Attack and War Caster both refer to "Hostile" Creatures. Allies are not hostile.

Ah, didn't see the hostile. Yea that would stop it working, might be able to get my DM to house-rule it in still, that or make the other PCs angry at my character first (hostile doesn't NECESSARILY mean attacking you...) :tongue:

Edit: and now I'm imagining a bard with war caster casting 'friends' on his allies before combat.

[Eslin]

I would say no.

Opportunity Attack and War Caster both refer to "hostile" creatures. Allies are not hostile.

That's easy to deal with, just have them yell angrily at you whenever they need to get buffed. This isn't a video game in which your friends are highlighted in green and your foes in red, hostile isn't a meaningful distinction. If you really care, have them declare themselves your greatest foe (speaking's a free action!) and apologise to you after you've buffed them.

Even works fluff wise - the characters have realised this kind of thing only works when they're genuinely enemies, so they make a pact that when the cleric indicates he wants to buff them, they become his most hostile, hated foe until he atones for his sins by attempting to buff them and then they're best friends (until he indicates he wants to buff them again).

[LtDarien]

Various cheese.
:roy:

Better to argue that the usage of the word "hostile" does not imply the creature must be hostile towards you.

[Eslin]

:roy:

Better to argue that the usage of the word "hostile" does not imply the creature must be hostile towards you.

Hah! Even better, I love it.

Definitely allowing it, considering that buffing is frequently the most boring role - clerics are no longer CoDzilla, and after a few levels unless you're death domain your melee ability becomes useless, so an ability that encourages them to get into melee and position tactically (ally has to leave your threatened area) for extra buffs is a welcome addition when the buffbot role has become so dull (bards/clerics/druids etc aren't boring to play by themselves, but their leader aspects certainly are. If you are considering playing one and want to have fun, don't contribute any more healing than anyone else does. You are not a walking medicine cabinet.)

Seriously, consider this in the light of the fact that healing is boring - it has none of the tactical elements even attacking someone has, it's just trading your spell slots for hp for a party member. 3.5 had characters with spell buffs be monsters in their own right, 4e had leaders with a variety of tactical options and abilities (and almost no cure x wounds style healing) and 5e ignored all that, went straight back to 1990 and made clerics feel like a box of bandaids. This isn't a fix, but it does alleviate things a bit by adding a tactical element to buffing party members so I'll be mentioning it to my players.

[Tenmujiin]

:roy:

Better to argue that the usage of the word "hostile" does not imply the creature must be hostile towards you.

Well played, good sir. And here I was about to suggest the 'Drill Sergeant Cleric.' All the lower ranks hate him but he doesn't care because it means he can dole out the buffs.

[McBars]

That's easy to deal with, just have them yell angrily at you whenever they need to get buffed. This isn't a video game in which your friends are highlighted in green and your foes in red, hostile isn't a meaningful distinction. If you really care, have them declare themselves your greatest foe (speaking's a free action!) and apologise to you after you've buffed them.

Even works fluff wise - the characters have realised this kind of thing only works when they're genuinely enemies, so they make a pact that when the cleric indicates he wants to buff them, they become his most hostile, hated foe until he atones for his sins by attempting to buff them and then they're best friends (until he indicates he wants to buff them again).

If hostile wasn't a meaningful distinction why explicitly mention it in the wording of those rules? Also the postulated method for having allies become 'hostile creatures' is flim-flam. Further opposing this argument is the first paragraph listed under "opportunity attacks" which specifies "foes" as provoking OAs.

[Eslin]

If hostile wasn't a meaningful distinction why explicitly mention it in the wording of those rules? Also the postulated method for having allies become 'hostile creatures' is flim-flam. Further opposing this argument is the first paragraph listed under "opportunity attacks" which specifies "foes" as provoking OAs.

So? They don't have to be hostile to you or to be your foes, they just have to be hostile and foes. Of anyone. And if the DM rules they do have to be hostile, then the whole pact where they are your enemy until you buff them sorts it out. This works RAW, and fun wise it works too since it adds an interesting tactical element to a very boring role. Nobody wants to be the person who has absolutely no challenge and spends their turn saying 'I give this guy haste' while everyone else gets to enjoy using their head to work out the best way to attack, this way they can use their reaction to do it but need to tactically position themselves so allies will move past them. Adds fun, doesn't upset anyone (since what you're doing benefits the party, doesn't make you strong), perfect addition to the game.

[Fra Antonio]

So? They don't have to be hostile to you or to be your foes, they just have to be hostile and foes. Of anyone. And if the DM rules they do have to be hostile, then the whole pact where they are your enemy until you buff them sorts it out. This works RAW, and fun wise it works too since it adds an interesting tactical element to a very boring role.
It's not even slightly tactical, just some cheesy rules house-lawyering.
Do you feel like you need a silly excuse like this to allow quick buffing in your game? Just make all buffs available as reaction if you feel buffing is boring :)

[McBars]

So? They don't have to be hostile to you or to be your foes, they just have to be hostile and foes. Of anyone. And if the DM rules they do have to be hostile, then the whole pact where they are your enemy until you buff them sorts it out. This works RAW, and fun wise it works too since it adds an interesting tactical element to a very boring role.

Au contraire mon frere, the passage does in fact specify "your foes." Hence it does not work RAW.

As to the fun part, which as a fellow DM I applaud you for trying to maximize, Are you finding that people do not enjoy playing clerics bards druids etc? Perhaps it's just my experience, but in the games that I play in or DM, I've noticed people to be very satisfied and enthusiastic about playing those classes or the support roles that you've mentioned.

Though perhaps this whole issue does bring up humorous possibilities if you had a party with characters with conflicting alignments, or a party of adventuring lawyers and solicitors who would agree to such a flim-flam pact or contract ("read the fine print and bless me you whorish priest!")... Man now I do want to make a campaign of adventuring lawyers

[Eslin]

It's not even slightly tactical, just some cheesy rules house-lawyering.
Do you feel like you need a silly excuse like this to allow quick buffing in your game? Just make all buffs available as reaction if you feel buffing is boring :)

Still makes it boring. Options are what results in fun - if wizards got a spell that did 1000 damage it would be amazing, but boring as hell to play since it would make most other combat spells useless. The bit that I like about the attack of opportunity thing is it means the buffer gets an advantage if he positions himself well in relation to the party. The bard can now choose between using his action to cast haste on you from 30 feet away or positioning himself so you run past him and using a reaction to do it instead. Player satisfaction in combat is derived directly from having options and using them well, and this lets the buffer have a bit more of that.


Au contraire mon frere, the passage does in fact specify "your foes." Hence it does not work RAW.

As to the fun part, which as a fellow DM I applaud you for trying to maximize, Are you finding that people do not enjoy playing clerics bards druids etc? Perhaps it's just my experience, but in the games that I play in or DM, I've noticed people to be very satisfied and enthusiastic about playing those classes or the support roles that you've mentioned.

Though perhaps this whole issue does bring up humorous possibilities if you had a party with characters with conflicting alignments, or a party of adventuring lawyers and solicitors.

The bard's powerful, and enjoys the variety of things she can do. The only time I see her smartphone in game is when she's realised the best course of action is to buff a party member, since she knows that she won't be doing anything interesting until the turn after next. Go look at how bards or clerics worked in 4e and come back and look at 5e - as a whole 5e doesn't feel like final fantasy tactics and so is a huge improvement, but in combat healing and buffing is far far less interesting now since it became using up the player's entire turn doing an action with guaranteed success with no personal payoff. Casting an offensive spell is interesting, you have to figure out the odds of it working, decide what tool is most appropriate, possibly position the effect so it's most useful - in contrast, healing is just spending your entire turn making someone's hp get bigger.

[jkat718]

The bit that I like about the attack of opportunity thing is it means the buffer gets an advantage if he positions himself well in relation to the party. The bard can now choose between using his action to cast haste on you from 30 feet away or positioning himself so you run past him and using a reaction to do it instead

Why not allow buffs to be used as reactions, but only at range: touch? That would encourage buffers to strategize with the rest of the party, while not limiting their options out of combat or on the sidelines.

[jkat718]

*snip* Man now I do want to make a campaign of adventuring lawyers

Oh, hey...
https://lh4.ggpht.com/jO_ZirI9wIYyM4ulBnLBp2xG9jCKxG5qlPM_DoVu66OJxjFWey j0fKOQJyDRYxm1Y8CqWg=s88

[Sartharina]

All the discussion of twisting 'hostile' to allow team buffs is making me think of those particularly rough and abusive MMO raids where everyone's swearing at each other and ****.

[Person_Man]

I would say no. To quote the relevant rule:


In a fight, everyone is constantly watching for enemies to drop their guard. You can rarely move heedlessly past your foes without putting yourself in danger; doing so provokes an opportunity attack.

You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.

You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don’t provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don’t provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe’s reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy.

It very clearly is meant to only apply against enemies/hostile creatures, and not allies.

[jkat718]

It very clearly is meant to only apply against enemies/hostile creatures, and not allies.

We've already gotten past the point of accepting that this is against the RAI, and are now trying to intentionally mis-interpret the RAW in an as-egregious-as-possible manner to allow it. :smallbiggrin:

[Easy_Lee]

Haha, this thread is a rare gem.

If someone invests in warcaster and can take a reaction to cast a hostile spell, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to cast a non-hostile spell. It's dubiously RAW and I suspect not RAI. But if you can only cast hostile spells as reactions, then that's a very odd ability.

A: "I have time to cast firebolt or magic missile, but not guidance!"
B: "That's a very specific amount of time."
A: "I only trained to do it with hostile spells. I like to blow people up more often!"
B: "You have issues."

[Galen]

Haha, this thread is a rare gem.

If someone invests in warcaster and can take a reaction to cast a hostile spell, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to cast a non-hostile spell. It's dubiously RAW and I suspect not RAI. But if you can only cast hostile spells as reactions, then that's a very odd ability.

A: "I have time to cast firebolt or magic missile, but not guidance!"
B: "That's a very specific amount of time."
A: "I only trained to do it with hostile spells. I like to blow people up more often!"
B: "You have issues."

But if you allow that, that opens a new can of worms:

"I can cast Guidance on an ally running by me at a moment's thought!"
"Can you cast Guidance on an ally standing still at a moment's thought?"
"No ..."

[McBars]

Haha, this thread is a rare gem.

If someone invests in warcaster and can take a reaction to cast a hostile spell, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to cast a non-hostile spell. It's dubiously RAW and I suspect not RAI. But if you can only cast hostile spells as reactions, then that's a very odd ability.

A: "I have time to cast firebolt or magic missile, but not guidance!"
B: "That's a very specific amount of time."
A: "I only trained to do it with hostile spells. I like to blow people up more often!"
B: "You have issues."

Not to crap on the point you're trying to make but, it's the target that's required to be hostile not the spell you cast as a rxn; If you took warcaster and that enemy orc got too close, feel free to unleash cure moderate wounds on them (which interestingly enough then might make you a foe to your party members...)

The whole debate revolves around just what/who triggers the warcaster's reactionary casting; The PHB says that when a creature triggers an OA you get to cast the spell as a rxn instead of making the OA, And the entry for describing what triggers an OA specifies the character's foes.

[Easy_Lee]

But if you allow that, that opens a new can of worms:

"I can cast Guidance on an ally running by me at a moment's thought!"
"Can you cast Guidance on an ally standing still at a moment's thought?"
"No ..."

Right, I'd probably just say warcaster means you can cast buffs as reactions or hostile spells as specified. You only get one reaction anyway, and people who abuse it are gonna run out of spells real quick.

[jkat718]

But if you allow that, that opens a new can of worms:

"I can cast Guidance on an ally running by me at a moment's thought!"
"Can you cast Guidance on an ally standing still at a moment's thought?"
"No ..."

My above suggestion here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18393825&postcount=15) would alleviate, if not remove, this problem. As per Lee's suggestion to adapt War Caster, this would probably be a feat-granted option, most likely an additional benefit to (but possibly separate from) War Caster.

[McBars]

My above suggestion here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18393825&postcount=15) would alleviate, if not remove, this problem. As per Lee's suggestion to adapt War Caster, this would probably be a feat-granted option, most likely an additional benefit to (but possibly separate from) War Caster.

Just to play devils advocate, I think Your proposed modification would enable characters to cast two spells per round with too high a frequency.

[Person_Man]

We've already gotten past the point of accepting that this is against the RAI, and are now trying to intentionally mis-interpret the RAW in an as-egregious-as-possible manner to allow it. :smallbiggrin:

Fair enough. If we're going down that route, if we're being "realistic" about Opportunity Attacks, then in theory you should be able to make one whenever you want against whomever you want. I mean, we've already accepted the fact that you have enough time to make 1 attack with a Reaction. What is it about moving outside of your reach that allows you to do it? Why can't you just make the 1 Reaction attack whenever you want? Why isn't it triggered if an enemy walks in circles around your threatened "doughnut" of reach? Why can't it be triggered when an ally Shoves an enemy outside of your reach? You would think that an enemy being shoved has a harder time blocking an attack then an enemy that moves away under their own power? None of it makes any sense.

[jkat718]

Just to play devils advocate, I think Your proposed modification would enable characters to cast two spells per round with too high a frequency.

True. Possibly give a short list of spells that could be used this way? Or make it a X/rest ability? It is a feat, which is pretty pricey, but yeah, I see the balance issue.

[Easy_Lee]

This reminds me a lot of the debate as to whether blade pact warlocks with polearm mastery and war caster can OA with eldritch blast from 10'.

[Perseus]

And thus team stereotypical evil wins again...

[Xetheral]

Though perhaps this whole issue does bring up humorous possibilities if you had a party with characters with conflicting alignments, or a party of adventuring lawyers and solicitors who would agree to such a flim-flam pact or contract ("read the fine print and bless me you whorish priest!")... Man now I do want to make a campaign of adventuring lawyers

How about process servers instead? In a world where legal authority was based on having the power to enforce your judgments, imagine a crack team of process servers working for a court of archmages. They fight their way through minions to deliver enchanted self-executing judgments and teleporting court summons.

Could the archmages do it themselves? Sure... but they've got better things to do during their (legally mandated, by themselves) 15-minute workday.

[Ehcks]

I would say no. To quote the relevant rule:



It very clearly is meant to only apply against enemies/hostile creatures, and not allies.

I play Chaotic Evil. My party are my enemies, they just don't know it yet. I use them for my benefit until I gain enough power from my travels to defeat them all.

[Perseus]

I play Chaotic Evil. My party are my enemies, they just don't know it yet. I use them for my benefit until I gain enough power from my travels to defeat them all.

Hey! Someone else gets it!

:D

[Vogonjeltz]

So? They don't have to be hostile to you or to be your foes, they just have to be hostile and foes. Of anyone. And if the DM rules they do have to be hostile, then the whole pact where they are your enemy until you buff them sorts it out. This works RAW, and fun wise it works too since it adds an interesting tactical element to a very boring role. Nobody wants to be the person who has absolutely no challenge and spends their turn saying 'I give this guy haste' while everyone else gets to enjoy using their head to work out the best way to attack, this way they can use their reaction to do it but need to tactically position themselves so allies will move past them. Adds fun, doesn't upset anyone (since what you're doing benefits the party, doesn't make you strong), perfect addition to the game.

No, this is definitionally wrong.

The paragraph is written in the context of the actions of a particular character. That means the use of hostile is automatically referenced from the subjective perspective of said character.

If it's not an enemy of the character, the movement doesn't provoke. There's no leeway there, at all.

[McBars]

I play Chaotic Evil. My party are my enemies, they just don't know it yet. I use them for my benefit until I gain enough power from my travels to defeat them all.

Okay, so if you had war caster then you could use it On your "foes" I suppose, To help them or to harm them though in the latter case after getting over their shock the party would likely gangbeat you.

If any of the members of your party had war caster then they could not use it on you as they don't know that you are their clandestine chaotic evil foe.

[McBars]

How about process servers instead? In a world where legal authority was based on having the power to enforce your judgments, imagine a crack team of process servers working for a court of archmages. They fight their way through minions to deliver enchanted self-executing judgments and teleporting court summons.

Could the archmages do it themselves? Sure... but they've got better things to do during their (legally mandated, by themselves) 15-minute workday.

Oh man, I like that.

Also, Repo Man meets D&D...yes this could work....

[Easy_Lee]

No, this is definitionally wrong.

The paragraph is written in the context of the actions of a particular character. That means the use of hostile is automatically referenced from the subjective perspective of said character.

If it's not an enemy of the character, the movement doesn't provoke. There's no leeway there, at all.

While RAW, that doesn't answer the question of why certain things allow casting a spell as a reaction, and certain other things don't. Nor does it explain why some spells can be cast as reactions, and why others with identical cast times cannot. I'm still waiting on a good explanation for that one.

[rlc]

I play Chaotic Evil. My party are my enemies, they just don't know it yet. I use them for my benefit until I gain enough power from my travels to defeat them all.

Then you can make them hostile to you, but I wouldn't heal someone who's trying to kill me.

While RAW, that doesn't answer the question of why certain things allow casting a spell as a reaction, and certain other things don't. Nor does it explain why some spells can be cast as reactions, and why others with identical cast times cannot. I'm still waiting on a good explanation for that one.

It's mainly because that's how they work. That might nit be a good explanation, but that's about the only one that makes sense.

[Easy_Lee]

It's mainly because that's how they work. That might nit be a good explanation, but that's about the only one that makes sense.

Yeah I dunno, maybe we need a feat explicitly for casting beneficial spells as reactions. War...healer? Might be something for the homebrew board.

[Eslin]

No, this is definitionally wrong.

The paragraph is written in the context of the actions of a particular character. That means the use of hostile is automatically referenced from the subjective perspective of said character.

If it's not an enemy of the character, the movement doesn't provoke. There's no leeway there, at all.

There actually is plenty. Check 3.5, for moves like revitalising strike it required the enemy 'pose a threat to you or your allies in a direct, immediate way'. The descriptions in 5e require none of that, they just have to be hostile, your enemy, etc etc. That's easily solvable by them declaring themselves your hated foe whenever you want to buff them and then taking it back immediately afterwards, or just finding some minor thing (dancing, opinions on tariff reform, which is the best way to cook eggs) and declaring themselves your biggest foe and greatest enemy in regards to that and have them be your best friend otherwise.

[McBars]

There actually is plenty. Check 3.5, for moves like revitalising strike it required the enemy 'pose a threat to you or your allies in a direct, immediate way'. The descriptions in 5e require none of that, they just have to be hostile, your enemy, etc etc. That's easily solvable by them declaring themselves your hated foe whenever you want to buff them and then taking it back immediately afterwards, or just finding some minor thing (dancing, opinions on tariff reform, which is the best way to cook eggs) and declaring themselves your biggest foe and greatest enemy in regards to that and have them be your best friend otherwise.

I think there's a good deal less than you believe.

I can declare that I am the God of fiery might, but that doesn't make it so.

How many adventurers earnestly wish to heal/buff their greatest enemy while locked in combat with them?

Your final argument, while interesting, is thin . OA's are described in the combat chapter, specifically as a subarticle of the 'melee attacks' subject. Enemies or foes discussed in that subarticle are enemies or foes with respect to combat not the topic of egg cookery.

[rlc]

There actually is plenty. Check 3.5, for moves like revitalising strike it required the enemy 'pose a threat to you or your allies in a direct, immediate way'. The descriptions in 5e require none of that, they just have to be hostile, your enemy, etc etc. That's easily solvable by them declaring themselves your hated foe whenever you want to buff them and then taking it back immediately afterwards, or just finding some minor thing (dancing, opinions on tariff reform, which is the best way to cook eggs) and declaring themselves your biggest foe and greatest enemy in regards to that and have them be your best friend otherwise.

It doesn't say direct threat, but that's exactly what it means. If they're your hated foe in line dancing, then you can make opportunity attacks in a dance off, but not in combat.

[Safety Sword]

I just want to throw dice at people who are intentionally trying to find these "loopholes".

1. Read the rules. For all the goats who have ever been sacrificed to the dice gods. READ. THE. RULES.

2. Play the game with those rules. Just try it.

3. Don't change the rules until you prove to yourself that they aren't working. No. Not even then. That thing you don't like about that rule isn't a reason to change it until it is actually broken.

4. How it should be in "real life" is not a good game rule. This is a game about magic elves and fire dodging horses. You don't have any real life experience that you can apply to it.

5. When in doubt, read point 1 again and start from there.

[Eslin]

I think there's a good deal less than you believe.

I can declare that I am the God of fiery might, but that doesn't make it so.

How many adventurers earnestly wish to heal/buff their greatest enemy while locked in combat with them?

Your final argument, while interesting, is thin . OA's are described in the combat chapter, specifically as a subarticle of the 'melee attacks' subject. Enemies or foes discussed in that subarticle are enemies or foes with respect to combat not the topic of egg cookery.

You can declare yourself the god of fiery might, but that has no effect if there are actual gods in the setting, because that makes it a real thing and you aren't. If there are no gods in the setting, it actually is true, in that you're just as much a god as anyone else is. The difference here is that being a foe or an enemy of someone is entirely in your mind, so changing your mind actually makes it so. You can't declare yourself a water buffalo or a level 15 wizard and make those things become true because they're actual tangible properties, but you can have two characters declare themselves best friends or hated foes or ambivalent towards each other and make it so because those things are properties which only exist in their attitude towards each other.

There aren't a great number of things that become true just because your character says they're true, but for all intents and purposes anything that exists as a social construct between two people only needs their approval to become true. Some things only require one person to declare it true (I hate you), some things require both (we're best friends), but in a party where you can prearrange this kind of thing it's easily achievable.

Obviously not RaI, but it is RaW, and most importantly it adds fun without making anyone too strong.



Safetysword rant response!

I just want to throw dice at people who are intentionally trying to find these "loopholes".

1. Read the rules. For all the goats who have ever been sacrificed to the dice gods. READ. THE. RULES.
1. I've read the rules, it's legal.

2. Play the game with those rules. Just try it.
2. I have played the game with those rules.

3. Don't change the rules until you prove to yourself that they aren't working. No. Not even then. That thing you don't like about that rule isn't a reason to change it until it is actually broken.
3. It isn't that the rules aren't working, it's that the neat little trick that Temmujiin invented enhances a previously boring section of them. And I haven't changed any rules, this works RAW.

4. How it should be in "real life" is not a good game rule. This is a game about magic elves and fire dodging horses. You don't have any real life experience that you can apply to it.
4. Absolutely correct. Insisting on applying real life logic just tends to screw over martials, who are already behind casters as it is.

5. When in doubt, read point 1 again and start from there.
5. Have done so, I'm still sure this adds fun and detracts nothing from the game so I'm allowing the hell out of it.

[Easy_Lee]

I just want to throw dice at people who are intentionally trying to find these "loopholes".

Finding unintended or obscure tricks is a big part of the fun of gaming, tabletop or otherwise, for many gamers. I don't know what it is about D&D that people who find clever tricks are the subject of scorn. In any other medium, such players would be commended for their cleverness. But there always seem to be power-tripping DMs out there who will throw the book at anyone who outsmarts them. Apparently, a large number of them post on these boards.

I would suggest you accept one simple truth: not everyone plays D&D the way you want them to. If you ever DM a game and someone tries this, you have every right to disallow it via Rule #0. If you participate in a game where a DM allows someone to do this, you have every right to get up and find a new table if it bothers you that much. But let's all try to be mature adults and let each other have our fun.

[McBars]

You can declare yourself the god of fiery might, but that has no effect if there are actual gods in the setting, because that makes it a real thing and you aren't. If there are no gods in the setting, it actually is true, in that you're just as much a god as anyone else is. The difference here is that being a foe or an enemy of someone is entirely in your mind, so changing your mind actually makes it so. You can't declare yourself a water buffalo or a level 15 wizard and make those things become true because they're actual tangible properties, but you can have two characters declare themselves best friends or hated foes or ambivalent towards each other and make it so because those things are properties which only exist in their attitude towards each other.

There aren't a great number of things that become true just because your character says they're true, but for all intents and purposes anything that exists as a social construct between two people only needs their approval to become true. Some things only require one person to declare it true (I hate you), some things require both (we're best friends), but in a party where you can prearrange this kind of thing it's easily achievable.

Obviously not RaI, but it is RaW, and most importantly it adds fun without making anyone too strong.

It it not true. Claiming that you are in fact a God because you are as much a God as anybody else does not make you a God. You failed to embody the requisite characteristics that define godhood, regardless of your claim or your station in this matter relative to other non-gods.

Making such an in game arrangement is savagely meta; Really, describe a scenario in which you and your allies have agreed to declare each other enemies, and that you've agreed to do so for the express purpose of healing and buffing each other to an NPC. You'll be regarded as a raving lunatic. That reasoning is nonsensical without having knowledge of OA's, war caster and rxns.

Perhaps the proposed modification does add fun, but I would vehemently argue that it does in fact make players able to use it too strong; It opens up the possibility of casting two spells per round With a regularity that certainly would disturb balance.

[Eslin]

It it not true. Claiming that you are in fact a God because you are as much a God as anybody else does not make you a God. You failed to embody the requisite characteristics that define godhood, regardless of your claim or your station in this matter relative to other non-gods.
Uh, yes? That's what I said? If gods are a real thing, claiming you're a god does nothing because you plainly aren't one. If gods aren't a real thing then there are no characteristics that define it because it isn't a thing, you can claim you're a god or a smerp or a vogon and you're as correct as anyone else would be since you're not actually describing anything tangible.


Making such an in game arrangement is savagely meta; Really, describe a scenario in which you and your allies have agreed to declare each other enemies, and that you've agreed to do so for the express purpose of healing and buffing each other to an NPC. You'll be regarded as a raving lunatic. That reasoning is nonsensical without having knowledge of OA's, war caster and rxns.

Perhaps the proposed modification does add fun, but I would vehemently argue that it does in fact make players able to use it too strong; It opens up the possibility of casting two spells per round With a regularity that certainly would disturb balance.

Is it that meta though? I mean, these things are supposed to represent in game constructs - if a cleric notices he appears to be able to cast spells more easily on passing enemies than allies, he's going to investigate why and try to figure out a way to make it work on allies, it's perfectly reasonable that he might note that it has to be a foe, and ask his party member to declare himself an enemy to see if it works on them.

Yes, it increases overall party strength. It's a flat benefit, the buffer goes from being able to use an offensive spell as a reaction in melee to being able to use either an offensive or a defensive spell as a reaction in melee. The thing is, such balance concerns are normally a problem because they will mean one character outperforms the others - overall party power's not really much of a problem, since you can run a campaign that challenges anyone from a field mouse to a party of wizards, it's imbalance between characters that reduces fun. The thing is, this change can only benefit other characters - it'll make the bard feel more useful, sure, and it'll increase how much she enjoys buffing because she needs to get into position to do it and it doesn't take up her whole turn any more, but it won't make people feel less useful because the buffs will be benefiting them.

[Safety Sword]

We've already gotten past the point of accepting that this is against the RAI, and are now trying to intentionally mis-interpret the RAW in an as-egregious-as-possible manner to allow it. :smallbiggrin:

You may have been joking. There are some people who see this as their mission. The problem is that they don't actually see the difference.

[Abithrios]

You may have been joking. There are some people who see this as their mission. The problem is that they don't actually see the difference.
Is that really a problem if they do it at tables other than yours?

[Eslin]

You may have been joking. There are some people who see this as their mission. The problem is that they don't actually see the difference.

What's the problem? If it's RaW and it makes the game fun, why get hung up on the fact that it obviously wasn't how it was intended to be used?

When my 5 year old cousin has huge fun turning his bike upside down, spinning the wheels really hard and pressing bits of wood against it to make interesting sounds I don't tell him he can't do that because that's not how bikes were intended to be used, I'm just happy he's enjoying himself. RaI is only a useful tool when RaW is hurting some aspect of player enjoyment - in this analogy, if he's trying to see what happens if he sets a lit match against the spinning wheel.

RaW is how the game is played since those are the actual rules, with the often very subjective (though not in this instance) RaI being introduced if it looks like RaW will interfere with enjoyment of the game.

[Safety Sword]

Is that really a problem if they do it at tables other than yours?


What's the problem? If it's RaW and it makes the game fun, why get hung up on the fact that it obviously wasn't how it was intended to be used?

When my 5 year old cousin has huge fun turning his bike upside down, spinning the wheels really hard and pressing bits of wood against it to make interesting sounds I don't tell him he can't do that because that's not how bikes were intended to be used, I'm just happy he's enjoying himself. RaI is only a useful tool when RaW is hurting some aspect of player enjoyment - in this analogy, if he's trying to see what happens if he sets a lit match against the spinning wheel.

RaW is how the game is played since those are the actual rules, with the often very subjective (though not in this instance) RaI being introduced if it looks like RaW will interfere with enjoyment of the game.

You can play your magic elf game however you like. Just make it clear that these are house rules. Because they are. Not intended, non-balanced, magic elf fairy house rules.

[McBars]

What's the problem? If it's RaW and it makes the game fun, why get hung up on the fact that it obviously wasn't how it was intended to be used?

When my 5 year old cousin has huge fun turning his bike upside down, spinning the wheels really hard and pressing bits of wood against it to make interesting sounds I don't tell him he can't do that because that's not how bikes were intended to be used, I'm just happy he's enjoying himself. RaI is only a useful tool when RaW is hurting some aspect of player enjoyment - in this analogy, if he's trying to see what happens if he sets a lit match against the spinning wheel.

RaW is how the game is played since those are the actual rules, with the often very subjective (though not in this instance) RaI being introduced if it looks like RaW will interfere with enjoyment of the game.

In spite of my opposition to your arguments, you are correct in that the primary directive of any DM is "Fun for everyone at the table." In that, I strongly support you.

I suppose my main issue with allowing such a thing is that it upsets balance, not necessarily the balance between classes, but upsetting the balance of characters/party vs world, AND shamelessly manipulates the RAW with an incredibly liberal interpretation that seems predicated on metagaming

[Safety Sword]

In spite of my opposition to your arguments, you are correct in that the primary directive of any DM is "Fun for everyone at the table." In that, I strongly support you.

I suppose my main issue with allowing such a thing is that it upsets balance, not necessarily the balance between classes, but upsetting the balance of characters/party vs world.

Fun for everyone. EVERYONE. That is key. Not just that guy who repeatedly misreads rules and tries to upset the game balance (in his favour) because that's the fun that he takes from the game.

[Eslin]

You can play your magic elf game however you like. Just make it clear that these are house rules. Because they are. Not intended, non-balanced, magic elf fairy house rules.

Those aren't house rules. This is sticking to RaW, if you change the rules, even to what you're sure it was intended to be, that's houseruling.


Fun for everyone. EVERYONE. That is key. Not just that guy who repeatedly misreads rules and tries to upset the game balance (in his favour) because that's the fun that he takes from the game.

How is it upsetting game balance in his favour? The reaction buff can be used on literally everyone except himself, it boosts the rest of the party.


In spite of my opposition to your arguments, you are correct in that the primary directive of any DM is "Fun for everyone at the table." In that, I strongly support you.

I suppose my main issue with allowing such a thing is that it upsets balance, not necessarily the balance between classes, but upsetting the balance of characters/party vs world, AND shamelessly manipulates the RAW with an incredibly liberal interpretation that seems predicated on metagaming

I'm fine with that - metagaming is using things your character doesn't know to succeed, but the ability to quickly cast spells on enemies being reverse engineered by the characters and exploited to cast spells on allies is fine. There are a lot of ways characters can gain power through rigorous testing, theorycrafting and experimentation to see what works, and I have no objection to them doing so - that's what brought humanity such progress in real life, treating it like it isn't a powerful tool in game is silly.

And balance between party and world wise, yes it does tilt things towards the party as a whole - but I have no problem with that, if they figure out a thing and achieve a more resounding success, good for them. They can go through all the trouble of a slow crawl to Mordor to drop the ring into a volcano and I'm sure they'll enjoy themselves, but if they figure out a way to destroy it where they are or just think to hop on eagles and fly their way there, good for them, and they're going to be very pleased at having outsmarted me. I'll laugh, be happy that my players enjoyed themselves and make sure the next set of problems they face is more challenging.

[LtDarien]

Oh god, what have I done?

:eek:

[Easy_Lee]

Fun for everyone. EVERYONE. That is key. Not just that guy who repeatedly misreads rules and tries to upset the game balance (in his favour) because that's the fun that he takes from the game.

I think you should reread your post. Fun for everyone doesn't just mean fun for you.

I once saw a trick in 3.5e where three gnome players grappled each other, forming a ball. On each of their turns, one carried the other two at a half speed, the others willingly failing their opposed checks. They proceeded to haul ass away from danger, a rolling ball of gnomes.

Intended? No, but everyone involved had fun. Perhaps it's best that no one at the table had a RAI-only, stop-having-fun mentality.

Back on the topic at hand, it's silly but I suspect a lot of DM's will allow it just because it's silly.

A: "Hey, heal me you $*#@*#!"
B: "He's being hostile, I use my reaction to cast cure wounds."

[Tenmujiin]

Fun for everyone. EVERYONE. That is key. Not just that guy who repeatedly misreads rules and tries to upset the game balance (in his favour) because that's the fun that he takes from the game.

How is this 'loophole' not fun for everyone? The player using it gets to buff allies in a way that requires thought and doesn't prevent them from taking other actions but does require a character building investment that their allies get to spend on something else and their allies get buffs when the would be buffer may otherwise have decided to spend their action for the round doing something interesting.

Normally I find Eslin's method of playing D&D to be strange and overly literal to the rules but I can't deny he main goal is making the game fun for his players (who do like to play that kind of RAW literal game) even if I wouldn't enjoy playing at his table.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I once saw a trick in 3.5e where three gnome players grappled each other, forming a ball. On each of their turns, one carried the other two at a half speed, the others willingly failing their opposed checks. They proceeded to haul ass away from danger, a rolling ball of gnomes.

Intended? No, but everyone involved had fun. Perhaps it's best that no one at the table had a RAI-only, stop-having-fun mentality.There are two main differences between this "fake hostility" trick and the "hugging your friends to go faster" trick.

1. Hugging your friends to go faster is funnier.
2. It uses well-defined game terms and mechanics to work.

Let me expound upon that. The actual 3.5 grapple rules were very specific as to what happens and what you could do in a grapple. You could, by the rules, move a grapple up to your move speed, along with everyone in it. It wasn't intended that multiple people in a grapple would all successfully move the grapple in one round, but the RAW was quite clear. All the relevant terms were defined as game terms, such that there was no room for interpretation of what the rules actually said.

This trick, on the other hand, requires an incredibly friendly DM to interpret a game term that is not fully defined. The closest thing we get to a definition of "hostile" is what Person_Man provided, which clearly suggests that a hostile target is a foe/enemy - that is, an actual foe/enemy, not someone who pretends in his mind to be one. In the spirit of "rulings over rules," the 5e writers left this term and many others undefined, leaving it up to the DM to define (with enough written/tweeted regarding intent). Whatever the DM rules is not a house rule. It is a ruling. Even if he rules that treating someone like an enemy (inexplicably) and then (inexplicably) healing your enemy with your reaction is legit. But I wouldn't count on it.

As an aside, I like playing support characters and buffers. I'm sorry you need something utterly ridiculous and immersion-breaking to enjoy it.

[Eslin]

There are two main differences between this "fake hostility" trick and the "hugging your friends to go faster" trick.

1. Hugging your friends to go faster is funnier.
2. It uses well-defined game terms and mechanics to work.

Let me expound upon that. The actual 3.5 grapple rules were very specific as to what happens and what you could do in a grapple. You could, by the rules, move a grapple up to your move speed, along with everyone in it. It wasn't intended that multiple people in a grapple would all successfully move the grapple in one round, but the RAW was quite clear. All the relevant terms were defined as game terms, such that there was no room for interpretation of what the rules actually said.

This trick, on the other hand, requires an incredibly friendly DM to interpret a game term that is not fully defined. The closest thing we get to a definition of "hostile" is what Person_Man provided, which clearly suggests that a hostile target is a foe/enemy - that is, an actual foe/enemy, not someone who pretends in his mind to be one. In the spirit of "rulings over rules," the 5e writers left this term and many others undefined, leaving it up to the DM to define (with enough written/tweeted regarding intent). Whatever the DM rules is not a house rule. It is a ruling. Even if he rules that treating someone like an enemy (inexplicably) and then (inexplicably) healing your enemy with your reaction is legit. But I wouldn't count on it.

As an aside, I like playing support characters and buffers. I'm sorry you need something utterly ridiculous and immersion-breaking to enjoy it.

Well, I'm not sorry. I've played 4e - glad they've moved on, didn't like the entire setup, but it had good points - and I've played 4e's leaders, where healing was a minor action and you used your standard action to do something. With your standard action you hit an ally and made it so all allies in melee gained a bonus to attacks against it, or you could throw an orb of light that healed your allies and hurt your enemies, or you could force it to be terrified based on the number of your friends near it. It was flat out better gameplay, it encouraged good tactics and positioning instead of using up your entire turn casting a buff on an ally, something requiring very little thought. That sort of thing is fun in Final Fantasy Tactics where you control every character, but when you've only got control of one using your entire turn casting a spell with no chance of failure or interaction with the rest of the spell is dull as hell. 4e clearly did is better, but for some reason they went back to 3.5's style of character buffing, which really confuses me - it was only fun in 3.5 because you could use it to make yourself into an absolute monster. When it's just about healing/buffing one at a time on party members, why on earth would they pick this way when they had a better one?

Regarding rulings over rules, I am incredibly sick of that phrase being misused. Rulings over rules is to encourage people to not bog down the play worrying about rules, to have the DM make a ruling and move on - it goes great with the ability check system, it's a good addition to 5e. What it does not mean is that you should use it to determine RaW vs RaI issues. What should determine how something works is how fun it is. A lot of things go into that - whether it makes things simpler or more complicated, whether it breaks immersion by making the game feel less real, and very importantly how it impacts inter-character balance, plus a host of other minor factors probably.

In this, we start with: Is it RaW? I think yes, since I find getting angry at your priest so he can heal you hilarious, but it's iffy. Not 'is contagion immediate(RaW, clearly yes)' level but not 'can your steed cast lightning bolt(only if you twist the rules very, vary far)', somewhere in between. The next step is not 'hur dur rulings over rules', nor is it 'is it RaI?', the next step is 'is this going to impact the amount of fun my players have?' - and yes, yes it is, it's going to increase their fun. It's going to boost the entire party, not the one using the trick, and it's going to make buffing a lot more interesting for those who don't find it engaging. That's where the buck stops, it stops at 'will this be fun for my players', and with no downsides but potential upsides, that's a yes.

[Fwiffo86]

Regarding rulings over rules, I am incredibly sick of that phrase being misused. Rulings over rules is to encourage people to not bog down the play worrying about rules, to have the DM make a ruling and move on - it goes great with the ability check system, it's a good addition to 5e. What it does not mean is that you should use it to determine RaW vs RaI issues. What should determine how something works is how fun it is. A lot of things go into that - whether it makes things simpler or more complicated, whether it breaks immersion by making the game feel less real, and very importantly how it impacts inter-character balance, plus a host of other minor factors probably.


I am uncomfortable with anyone deciding if I am having fun or not besides me. "Is it fun" is subjective at best. No DM call should be made based on something as personally subjective. I would think that what the DM determines as fun, is not guaranteed to be fun for the table as a whole.

[Eslin]

I am uncomfortable with anyone deciding if I am having fun or not besides me. "Is it fun" is subjective at best. No DM call should be made based on something as personally subjective. I would think that what the DM determines as fun, is not guaranteed to be fun for the table as a whole.

True, fun's subjective. Decide what you want to allow based on your group, that's what rule 0 is all about. I've made it clear why I'm allowing it - gives buffers a way to buff without wasting their action, and it requires good positioning and reacting to the environment to do so. Turns a boring role fun, doesn't disturb party balance, I love it.

[jkat718]

You may have been joking. There are some people who see this as their mission. The problem is that they don't actually see the difference.

100% joking. I'll add blue text for clarity.


Oh god, what have I done?

:eek:

Divided by 0?


I think you should reread your post. Fun for everyone doesn't just mean fun for you.

I once saw a trick in 3.5e where three gnome players grappled each other, forming a ball. On each of their turns, one carried the other two at a half speed, the others willingly failing their opposed checks. They proceeded to haul ass away from danger, a rolling ball of gnomes.

Intended? No, but everyone involved had fun. Perhaps it's best that no one at the table had a RAI-only, stop-having-fun mentality.

Back on the topic at hand, it's silly but I suspect a lot of DM's will allow it just because it's silly.

A: "Hey, heal me you $*#@*#!"
B: "He's being hostile, I use my reaction to cast cure wounds."

Re: Gnomes
That's...amazing. Wow.

Re: Rule of Cool Silly
I agree that this is subjective/table-dependant/an arbitrary ruling by the DM, but if the DM clears a ruling with his table, and makes sure that they're okay with fun > realism/rules, then I say by all means, let them play with that ruling.

[Kornaki]

If you think of the fluff as healing/buffing your ally as they head into combat, it feels pretty good (and just ignore the fact that the justification is you are enemies for a brief second).

[Eslin]

Re: Rule of Cool Silly
I agree that this is subjective/table-dependant/an arbitrary ruling by the DM, but if the DM clears a ruling with his table, and makes sure that they're okay with fun > realism/rules, then I say by all means, let them play with that ruling.

It's actually fun/realism>RaI - it doesn't make any sense that you can use a minor amount of time to cast a spell on a hostile, but somehow can't use that same unit of time to cast a spell on a friend. Unintuitive as it seems, using warcaster for friends and foes makes more sense than just using them for foes, since only casting on hostile targets is an arbitrary limitation that makes no in world sense.

[Galen]

only casting on hostile targets is an arbitrary limitation that makes no in world sense.While I respect this opinion, it only doesn't make sense to you. There are multiple reasons why it could make sense in-world.

1. It's magic. Who are you to say how magic spells work? Who are you to say there's no difference between Fire Bolt and Cure Wounds? Maybe there's an inherent difference between casting a spell on an ally and casting it on a foe. Something they teach in Spells 102. And the difference is manifested in how War Caster works.
2. In combat, you pay attention to every move and twitch of your enemies. You don't pay the same amount of attention to your friends. Because enemies will stab you once you take your eyes off them, and friends won't. So when an enemy decides to run by you, BAM, you're ready with an OA (weapon or spell). If a friend decides to run by you, you're not ready because you were simply not paying as much attention to him as you did the enemy.

Anyway, now I have conclusively proved why playing War Caster as written makes sense to me. I agree and respect that it still probably doesn't makes sense to you. Your game.

[Eslin]

While I respect this opinion, it only doesn't make sense to you. There are multiple reasons why it could make sense in-world.

1. It's magic. Who are you to say how magic spells work? Who are you to say there's no difference between Fire Bolt and Cure Wounds? Maybe there's an inherent difference between casting a spell on an ally and casting it on a foe. Something they teach in Spells 102. And the difference is manifested in how War Caster works.
2. In combat, you pay attention to every move and twitch of your enemies. You don't pay the same amount of attention to your friends. Because enemies will stab you once you take your eyes off them, and friends won't. So when an enemy decides to run by you, BAM, you're ready with an OA (weapon or spell). If a friend decides to run by you, you're not ready because you were simply not paying as much attention to him as you did the enemy.

Anyway, now I have conclusively proved why playing War Caster as written makes sense to me. I agree and respect that it still probably doesn't makes sense to you. Your game.

1. It isn't magic, it's your target. Whether you can do it is not determined by any aspect of magic (there is no restriction on it being a positive or negative spell, even), whether you can do it is based on whether the target is hostile or not, a condition completely unrelated to magic. And there is no innate difference between casting a spell on an ally or on a foe, it's an interpretation based description that is, again, unrelated to how magic works.

2. So you fix that by paying just as much attention to your allies as your enemies, which you are likely doing anyway if you're a buffer/healer. Especially if doing so is relevant to how you cast your spells, and it's something you'll be used to anyway if you're part of a small tactical unit (adventuring party). Apologies if this isn't the case, but this looks a lot like you want the world to be a certain way and are looking for reasons to justify that worldview rather than the other way around.

[McBars]

looks a lot like you want the world to be a certain way and are looking for reasons to justify that worldview rather than the other way around.

Now that is a funny thing to say.

You've justified your dubious interpretation of OAs, war caster, and hostility at your table. Galen in turn has furnished you with justifications for his interpretations of the same, yet you are so quick to definitively dismiss that view when you arguably require much more rearranging of things to produce the result you desire.

[Eslin]

Now that is a funny thing to say.

You've justified your dubious interpretation of OAs, war caster, and hostility at your table. Galen in turn has furnished you with justifications for his interpretations of the same, yet you are so quick to definitively dismiss that view when you arguably require much more rearranging of things to produce the result you desire.

Oh, mine's on the far side of RaI, though it isn't a dubious interpretation of the first two, just of hostility. I'm not reinterpreting anything to come to the conclusion that in-universe it makes no sense that you'd stop being able to cast spells a certain way on someone just because they became your friend. My view requires the rearrangement of nothing from the immersion standpoint we were discussing, it's only from a rules standpoint that things need be twisted.

[Easy_Lee]

This reminds me of the mounted combatant debate. "How can a horse dodge a fireball without his rider dodging as well?" "It's magic, don't question it! You didn't write the PHB!" Come on guys, that's not a good reason whether it's RAW or not.

If casters can cast certain spells as reactions but not others, there needs to be a reason why. The PHB doesn't provide a reason, so it's up to the DM to either provide a reason or, the better response IMO, reward players for being clever enough to notice that and try something new.

If it's a balance concern, nobody (or no reasonable player) is going to be upset about nerfing it. If it makes the campaign easier, throw harder enemies who use the same tactics at the player. And if you don't want it at your table, just say warcasters spend time perfecting attack spells, or buff spells are more difficult to cast (destruction easier than creation), or whatever legitimate reason you want to come up with.

But please don't just say "no, them's the rules," because nobody wants to hear that.

[Galen]

Apologies if this isn't the case, but this looks a lot like you want the world to be a certain way and are looking for reasons to justify that worldview rather than the other way around.No need to apologize, this is indeed the case. My worldview is that any game I run should not contain loophole abuse, especially if those are loopholes that make no sense neither by RAW, nor RAI, nor fluff. I am indeed looking for reasons to adapt my game to this standard, and, at least in this particular case, I am having no trouble finding them.

As for the element of "fun", which other posters mentioned... my idea of fun with respect to such exploits is to give them one good hearty laugh and move on. I believe I derive at least no less fun from chuckling at this exploit and not including it in my game as you are from taking it seriously and including it in yours.

The ball of gnomes was hilarious. And it's actually better than the War Caster stuff, since it's at least strictly RAW-legal.

[Eslin]

No need to apologize, this is indeed the case. My worldview is that any game I run should not contain loophole abuse, especially if those are loopholes that make no sense neither by RAW, nor RAI, nor fluff. I am indeed looking for reasons to adapt my game to this standard, and, at least in this particular case, I am having no trouble finding them.

As for the element of "fun", which other posters mentioned... my idea of fun with respect to such exploits is to give them one good hearty laugh and move on. I believe I derive at least no less fun from chuckling at this exploit and not including it in my game as you are from taking it seriously and including it in yours.

The ball of gnomes was hilarious. And it's actually better than the War Caster stuff, since it's at least strictly RAW-legal.

Eh, ball of gnomes wise I've seen worse - an escape artist check of 80 lets someone squeeze through a 2 inch square space as a medium creature, I've once had the rogue infiltrate a castle by hiding himself in an unsuspecting target's ass, climbing in while the noble was asleep.

It works RaW as long as you have the target declare himself hostile, doesn't even work slightly RaI, and fluff wise I find it makes perfect sense. The idea that someone can cast a spell more easily on a hostile target than an ally is frankly stupid, and I'm amused that warcaster has a loopholey way around it, though I'm probably just going to houserule the hostile bit out so the party doesn't have to set up the whole 'I hate you now buff me ok I love you again' thing.

[Safety Sword]

Eh, ball of gnomes wise I've seen worse - an escape artist check of 80 lets someone squeeze through a 2 inch square space as a medium creature, I've once had the rogue infiltrate a castle by hiding himself in an unsuspecting target's ass, climbing in while the noble was asleep.

It works RaW as long as you have the target declare himself hostile, doesn't even work slightly RaI, and fluff wise I find it makes perfect sense. The idea that someone can cast a spell more easily on a hostile target than an ally is frankly stupid, and I'm amused that warcaster has a loopholey way around it, though I'm probably just going to houserule the hostile bit out so the party doesn't have to set up the whole 'I hate you now buff me ok I love you again' thing.

The intention of the opportunity attack is that it represents an opponent letting their guard down during combat. It has a purpose. Using your reaction to cast a spell at the hostile creature who creates an opportunity for you to do so. You react to the opening to cast the spell. It's not extra time or actions you have stored in your back pocket.

It has nothing to do with how easy it is to cast a spell, it's having the right opportunity to do so during the chaos of combat.

Having your allies declare themselves hostile so you can buff them is munchkinism of the highest order.

[Easy_Lee]

It has nothing to do with how easy it is to cast a spell, it's having the right opportunity to do so during the chaos of combat.

Which still doesn't explain why some spells can be cast suddenly as a reaction, no planning involved, while others can't. This point has been brought up and summarily ignored by detractors over and over again in this thread. At this point, I can only assume no one has a good explanation (which is funny, since I offered two earlier).

But you know what the correct answer to this is? It's a DM call.

[Safety Sword]

Which still doesn't explain why some spells can be cast suddenly as a reaction, no planning involved, while others can't. This point has been brought up and summarily ignored by detractors over and over again in this thread. At this point, I can only assume no one has a good explanation (which is funny, since I offered two earlier).

But you know what the correct answer to this is? It's a DM call.

Your house rules are your house rules. Of course.

I know there are people on these forums who see it as their mission to gain every advantage out of every favourable reading of every rule written for D&D. That's part of the fun for them. If that's how your game is, great.

However when I see people trying to change their party members into hostiles to bend a rule it just goes against the spirit of the game, for me. Casting buff spells on reactions is in the same boat, we all know it's not intended, the rule is clear. The reasoning is not so clear, granted, but that doesn't make it any less of the established rule.

Not everything in the game needs an explicit explanation for being.

[Xetheral]

Which still doesn't explain why some spells can be cast suddenly as a reaction, no planning involved.

The discrepancy is a weakness of the model that is the rule system. (That's not a judgment on the system, just an observation.) When designing the War Caster feat, the writers didn't think about the dissonance they were creating. At this point one has several options:

1) Assume the model is perfect, treat the apparent dissonance as insight, and extrapolate that there is no logical reason that beneficial spells couldn't be cast in similar circumstances, thus permitting cantrip buffs and healing as a reaction. (Either as a ruling or a houserule, depending on your definitions of the terms.)

2) Assume the model is perfect, and extrapolate a reason to IC explain-away the apparent dissonance that buff spells can't be cast in such circumstances.

3) Ignore the accidental dissonance and play the game as written, with OAs only being provoked by actual foes. If players try to treat their actual allies as foes, ask them nicely to stop.

4) Ignore the accidental dissonance and play the game as written, with OAs only being provoked by actual foes. If players try to treat their actual allies as foes, do an in-depth philosophical analysis of what it means to be a foe and whether players have successfully met this bar at your table.

5) Create a houserule to change that part of the game to be whatever you want it to be.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Well, I'm not sorry. I've played 4e - glad they've moved on, didn't like the entire setup, but it had good points - and I've played 4e's leaders, where healing was a minor action and you used your standard action to do something. With your standard action you hit an ally and made it so all allies in melee gained a bonus to attacks against it, or you could throw an orb of light that healed your allies and hurt your enemies, or you could force it to be terrified based on the number of your friends near it. It was flat out better gameplay, it encouraged good tactics and positioning instead of using up your entire turn casting a buff on an ally, something requiring very little thought. That sort of thing is fun in Final Fantasy Tactics where you control every character, but when you've only got control of one using your entire turn casting a spell with no chance of failure or interaction with the rest of the spell is dull as hell. 4e clearly did is better, but for some reason they went back to 3.5's style of character buffing, which really confuses me - it was only fun in 3.5 because you could use it to make yourself into an absolute monster. When it's just about healing/buffing one at a time on party members, why on earth would they pick this way when they had a better one?So, if buffs had a failure chance, they'd be more interesting? Some people like having actions they can do that affect the battlefield in a predictable manner - minimizing failure chance is in fact the point of many 3.5 caster builds. Also, no one says you have to use your cleric to heal mid-combat in 5th. It's pretty much similar to 3rd and 4th in that regard - I'd mainly use healing as a swift/minor/bonus action or to bring someone up from unconsciousness, and otherwise would buff/debuff/smack people. Now, 3e clerics were better at smacking/partybuffing, and 4e clerics were better at mixing effects (and pew pew lasering for certain builds), but the general principle is the same.


'hur dur rulings over rules'This entire section is a disingenuous non-response to my post. I merely re-stated the "rulings over rules" designer sentiment to postulate why certain game terms were not well defined. The force of my argument is that the game terms are not, in fact, well-defined, which can happen in any game, including one with different designer sentiment. Recall the hugging to go faster trick. Every step was explicitly specified in the rules, so it was unassailable by the actual written rules even though it was silly.

On the other hand, since "hostile" is never actually defined, the RAW is unclear. This happens quite a bit in the 3e forum when RAW questions come up. In this situation, you have two options: (1) Look to the text for implied support for a particular definition, and (2) Ask your DM for a ruling. You have given no actual textual support - i.e. rules that are written in the book - for the position that hostility is a state of mind that can change within a round. I readily admitted that the textual support for the opposing view is not 100% solid, since it never directly defines hostile (hence the problem), but it does heavily lean towards the view that a hostile target is an actual foe. Since there is no 100% support for either answer, you do need a ruling. You'd need a ruling in 3e. You'd need a ruling in 4e. There are some tricks in 5e, like the contagion trick you mentioned, that actually do work 100% RAW. This one does not, because it relies on a particular interpretation of an ill-defined game term.
the next step is 'is this going to impact the amount of fun my players have?' - and yes, yes it is, it's going to increase their fun. It's going to boost the entire party, not the one using the trick, and it's going to make buffing a lot more interesting for those who don't find it engaging. That's where the buck stops, it stops at 'will this be fun for my players', and with no downsides but potential upsides, that's a yes.This step could be true of house rules as well. Maybe I think the truly boring classes are the mundanes, so I give them something special and weird like being able to cut mountains in half and cause earthquakes with their battlecries, or rogues the equivalent of 3.5 Hide in Plain Sight + Shadowpounce. If it makes the game more fun, go ahead! But don't say it's in the rules.

[Eslin]

The intention of the opportunity attack is that it represents an opponent letting their guard down during combat. It has a purpose. Using your reaction to cast a spell at the hostile creature who creates an opportunity for you to do so. You react to the opening to cast the spell. It's not extra time or actions you have stored in your back pocket.

It has nothing to do with how easy it is to cast a spell, it's having the right opportunity to do so during the chaos of combat.

Having your allies declare themselves hostile so you can buff them is munchkinism of the highest order.

If an opponent who is on guard leaves an opening in which you can cast a spell, surely an ally who is leaving himself open to you all the time rather than in brief moments allows the same spell to be cast? Again, no-one's given a good reason why it's somehow easier to cast a spell on an enemy who is trying to protect himself than an ally who wants you to cast it.


Your house rules are your house rules. Of course.

I know there are people on these forums who see it as their mission to gain every advantage out of every favourable reading of every rule written for D&D. That's part of the fun for them. If that's how your game is, great.

However when I see people trying to change their party members into hostiles to bend a rule it just goes against the spirit of the game, for me. Casting buff spells on reactions is in the same boat, we all know it's not intended, the rule is clear. The reasoning is not so clear, granted, but that doesn't make it any less of the established rule.

Not everything in the game needs an explicit explanation for being.

No it doesn't, but when it's rules legal and enhances fun it does need a good explanation for being taken away.


The discrepancy is a weakness of the model that is the rule system. (That's not a judgment on the system, just an observation.) When designing the War Caster feat, the writers didn't think about the dissonance they were creating. At this point one has several options:

1) Assume the model is perfect, treat the apparent dissonance as insight, and extrapolate that there is no logical reason that beneficial spells couldn't be cast in similar circumstances, thus permitting cantrip buffs and healing as a reaction. (Either as a ruling or a houserule, depending on your definitions of the terms.)

2) Assume the model is perfect, and extrapolate a reason to IC explain-away the apparent dissonance that buff spells can't be cast in such circumstances.

3) Ignore the accidental dissonance and play the game as written, with OAs only being provoked by actual foes. If players try to treat their actual allies as foes, ask them nicely to stop.

4) Ignore the accidental dissonance and play the game as written, with OAs only being provoked by actual foes. If players try to treat their actual allies as foes, do an in-depth philosophical analysis of what it means to be a foe and whether players have successfully met this bar at your table.

5) Create a houserule to change that part of the game to be whatever you want it to be.

A neutral post explaining the situation and giving a set of logical, concise answers to how one might deal with it and why. I can't give +1 or anything in this forum, best I can do is look forward to your responses in future threads.


So, if buffs had a failure chance, they'd be more interesting? Some people like having actions they can do that affect the battlefield in a predictable manner - minimizing failure chance is in fact the point of many 3.5 caster builds. Also, no one says you have to use your cleric to heal mid-combat in 5th. It's pretty much similar to 3rd and 4th in that regard - I'd mainly use healing as a swift/minor/bonus action or to bring someone up from unconsciousness, and otherwise would buff/debuff/smack people. Now, 3e clerics were better at smacking/partybuffing, and 4e clerics were better at mixing effects (and pew pew lasering for certain builds), but the general principle is the same.

This entire section is a disingenuous non-response to my post. I merely re-stated the "rulings over rules" designer sentiment to postulate why certain game terms were not well defined. The force of my argument is that the game terms are not, in fact, well-defined, which can happen in any game, including one with different designer sentiment. Recall the hugging to go faster trick. Every step was explicitly specified in the rules, so it was unassailable by the actual written rules even though it was silly.

On the other hand, since "hostile" is never actually defined, the RAW is unclear. This happens quite a bit in the 3e forum when RAW questions come up. In this situation, you have two options: (1) Look to the text for implied support for a particular definition, and (2) Ask your DM for a ruling. You have given no actual textual support - i.e. rules that are written in the book - for the position that hostility is a state of mind that can change within a round. I readily admitted that the textual support for the opposing view is not 100% solid, since it never directly defines hostile (hence the problem), but it does heavily lean towards the view that a hostile target is an actual foe. Since there is no 100% support for either answer, you do need a ruling. You'd need a ruling in 3e. You'd need a ruling in 4e. There are some tricks in 5e, like the contagion trick you mentioned, that actually do work 100% RAW. This one does not, because it relies on a particular interpretation of an ill-defined game term.This step could be true of house rules as well. Maybe I think the truly boring classes are the mundanes, so I give them something special and weird like being able to cut mountains in half and cause earthquakes with their battlecries, or rogues the equivalent of 3.5 Hide in Plain Sight + Shadowpounce. If it makes the game more fun, go ahead! But don't say it's in the rules.

Yes, minimising failure chance is often a character build/in game tactical goal, and without any failure chance to minimise those things become less interesting. See my point? And for clerics the general principle is not the same, the fundamental difference being in 5e you need to give up your entire turn to just go 'I cast x buff on y' while in 4e such buffing was either a minor action or depended on several factors with your standard action. To illustrate the difference with arbitrary numbers not related to gameplay, imagine character A gets a +6 buff, while character B gets to choose between a +3 buff, a +7 buff if she and her ally hit the same target in melee, a +4 buff for every ally within 10 metres and a +2 buff that increases to +10 if he takes a hit meant for an ally. Character A might be overall as strong, since he can just constantly have his +6 buff regardless of circumstance, but character B is going to be far more enjoyable to play because he has interesting tactical decisions to make.

And I'm not sure to say whether it's in the rules - I know if I hadn't heard of it here and my barbarian screamed at my bard that he hated her as he passed, she buffed him as a reaction, I asked what was going on and she pointed me to warcaster I'd laugh and then allow it. I honestly think, considering enmity is something that only exists between two people and is not a tangible property, that if two people decide they're hostile, then they're hostile, and it works fine. Honestly, I think Xetheral's post about sums up everything - just pick the option you like most and play with it.

[Safety Sword]

No it doesn't, but when it's rules legal and enhances fun it does need a good explanation for being taken away.


You can't take it away if it's not already included in the game.

You're adding something to the game. It's a house rule. You're allowed to have them. Go for it.

[Eslin]

You can't take it away if it's not already included in the game.

You're adding something to the game. It's a house rule. You're allowed to have them. Go for it.

It's not a house rule. You can clearly make opportunity attacks against someone hostile, so you have an agreement where every time you need to buff the barbarian as he runs past, he swears an oath to be your enemy forever until you buff him. RaW legal, just not RaI =P

[Safety Sword]

It's not a house rule. You can clearly make opportunity attacks against someone hostile, so you have an agreement where every time you need to buff the barbarian as he runs past, he swears an oath to be your enemy forever until you buff him. RaW legal, just not RaI =P

I think my thoughts on that particular issue are quite clear.

Now let's all sing the munchkin song.

[Vogonjeltz]

There actually is plenty. Check 3.5, for moves like revitalising strike it required the enemy 'pose a threat to you or your allies in a direct, immediate way'. The descriptions in 5e require none of that, they just have to be hostile, your enemy, etc etc. That's easily solvable by them declaring themselves your hated foe whenever you want to buff them and then taking it back immediately afterwards, or just finding some minor thing (dancing, opinions on tariff reform, which is the best way to cook eggs) and declaring themselves your biggest foe and greatest enemy in regards to that and have them be your best friend otherwise.

Newsflash Eslin: This is not 3.5

Pretending to be an enemy is just that, pretending, they're never really hostile, this still doesn't work. Allies do not trigger Opportunity Attacks.


Is that really a problem if they do it at tables other than yours?

I think the problem is that providing misleading/outright false information to others, who are actually interested in the correct answer, helps no one.

[Eslin]

Newsflash Eslin: This is not 3.5

Pretending to be an enemy is just that, pretending, they're never really hostile, this still doesn't work. Allies do not trigger Opportunity Attacks.

I think the problem is that providing misleading/outright false information to others, who are actually interested in the correct answer, helps no one.

Except they are hostile. Hostile isn't a word given in game definition, it's not a status, it's a social construct that exists purely between two people. If those two people decide that that social construct exists between them, it does, since that's how those things work. If two players have their characters declare each other friends, the DM doesn't get to say 'no you're not' - what a character thinks is explicitly one of the only parts of the world a DM doesn't have control over. Two characters can declare themselves in love or best friends forever or planning to take a vacation together to Mechanus or hostile towards each other and as the DM you cannot tell them they're not, since it is purely between those two characters and you have no control over it unless you have an NPC mind control one of them.

RaW, this works.

[Knaight]

Except they are hostile. Hostile isn't a word given in game definition, it's not a status, it's a social construct that exists purely between two people. If those two people decide that that social construct exists between them, it does, since that's how those things work. If two players have their characters declare each other friends, the DM doesn't get to say 'no you're not' - what a character thinks is explicitly one of the only parts of the world a DM doesn't have control over.

While this is technically true, the characters involved are characterized by a notable lack of actual hostility. The term hostile is clearly used here to mean enemy (as foe is also used), and two characters who dislike each other but are in the same party don't fit that. Two characters that get along fine then suddenly declare hostilities in a fight so that they can get a tactical advantage fit that even more poorly.

The GM has the bulk of the duty of maintaining the integrity of the setting and the emerging narrative, but the least the players can do is not actively undercut it through ridiculous nonsense. This abuse of hostility is undercutting it through ridiculous nonsense.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

On the one hand, a player controls his character's attitudes, even if they change at the drop of a hat for metagame reasons.

On the other hand, players do not control the definition of all terms not properly defined in-game. "Hostile" doesn't have to relate solely to a particular measure of attitude. It can, for instance, relate to whether someone is actually your foe, as is highly implied in the text on opportunity attacks.

If you were truly hostile enough to someone that he was your actual enemy, you could make an opportunity attack. And with War Caster, you could replace the standard OA with a cantrip. But if the target actually was your enemy, i.e. if you actually felt that hostile at the time, you wouldn't buff or heal him. You would attack him. Hence why you can replace an opportunity attack with a cantrip in the first place. Or, your character is a nutter who heals his true enemies, but I don't think that's going to go over well.

On the other other hand, ninja'd by Knaight. Ah well, posting anyway.

[Eslin]

While this is technically true, the characters involved are characterized by a notable lack of actual hostility. The term hostile is clearly used here to mean enemy (as foe is also used), and two characters who dislike each other but are in the same party don't fit that. Two characters that get along fine then suddenly declare hostilities in a fight so that they can get a tactical advantage fit that even more poorly.

The GM has the bulk of the duty of maintaining the integrity of the setting and the emerging narrative, but the least the players can do is not actively undercut it through ridiculous nonsense. This abuse of hostility is undercutting it through ridiculous nonsense.

Eh, having read this may players have already roleplayed it out. The bard already had warcaster, and her character sat and talked magic with the druid when she noticed that she could cast spells quickly on passing enemies but not on allies. She then did a bunch of testing of different conditions, and when she got the barbarian to roar at her and actually attack her she was able to cast as a reaction, so she's determined actual hostility is the key. She has now sworn the party to a pact - when she gives the signal, they have to become hostile. The nature of this hostility is that they will, when no other enemies remain, actually try to attack her until she earns their forgiveness by either casting a spell on her or apologising to them. They do become hostile, she's had each of them attack her to ensure that they mean it, and now in combat every time she says a specific word they decide to come after her unless she casts a spell on them or apologises.

So, how aren't they hostile?


On the one hand, a player controls his character's attitudes, even if they change at the drop of a hat for metagame reasons.

On the other hand, players do not control the definition of all terms not properly defined in-game. "Hostile" doesn't have to relate solely to a particular measure of attitude. It can, for instance, relate to whether someone is actually your foe, as is highly implied in the text on opportunity attacks.

If you were truly hostile enough to someone that he was your actual enemy, you could make an opportunity attack. And with War Caster, you could replace the standard OA with a cantrip. But if the target actually was your enemy, i.e. if you actually felt that hostile at the time, you wouldn't buff or heal him. You would attack him. Hence why you can replace an opportunity attack with a cantrip in the first place. Or, your character is a nutter who heals his true enemies, but I don't think that's going to go over well.

On the other other hand, ninja'd by Knaight. Ah well, posting anyway.

Nope, they have to be hostile, you don't have to be hostile towards them. You can have someone be angry at you and not be angry at them.

[Galen]

This thread is a brilliant train wreck. It's just ... I have no words. Amazing.

[Knaight]

Eh, having read this may players have already roleplayed it out. The bard already had warcaster, and her character sat and talked magic with the druid when she noticed that she could cast spells quickly on passing enemies but not on allies. She then did a bunch of testing of different conditions, and when she got the barbarian to roar at her and actually attack her she was able to cast as a reaction, so she's determined actual hostility is the key. She has now sworn the party to a pact - when she gives the signal, they have to become hostile. The nature of this hostility is that they will, when no other enemies remain, actually try to attack her until she earns their forgiveness by either casting a spell on her or apologising to them. They do become hostile, she's had each of them attack her to ensure that they mean it, and now in combat every time she says a specific word they decide to come after her unless she casts a spell on them or apologises.

So, how aren't they hostile?

The sincerity of the hostility is somewhat called into question by the whole pact between friends thing. Beyond that, the underlying issue regarding the integrity of the narrative remains - that pact and the resulting scenes come off as kind of ridiculous, and while that can be downplayed via the right role playing (and sounds like it has been), it's still a bit off in the general case.

[Vogonjeltz]

Eh, having read this may players have already roleplayed it out. The bard already had warcaster, and her character sat and talked magic with the druid when she noticed that she could cast spells quickly on passing enemies but not on allies. She then did a bunch of testing of different conditions, and when she got the barbarian to roar at her and actually attack her she was able to cast as a reaction, so she's determined actual hostility is the key. She has now sworn the party to a pact - when she gives the signal, they have to become hostile. The nature of this hostility is that they will, when no other enemies remain, actually try to attack her until she earns their forgiveness by either casting a spell on her or apologising to them. They do become hostile, she's had each of them attack her to ensure that they mean it, and now in combat every time she says a specific word they decide to come after her unless she casts a spell on them or apologises.

So, how aren't they hostile?



Nope, they have to be hostile, you don't have to be hostile towards them. You can have someone be angry at you and not be angry at them.

They're working together as allies, in a friendly manner. As you said before, they are pretending. It does not count as being hostile.

*yeah Galen, it's certainly giving me PTSD flashbacks of trying to reason with eggynack.

[Eslin]

They're working together as allies, in a friendly manner. As you said before, they are pretending. It does not count as being hostile.

*yeah Galen, it's certainly giving me PTSD flashbacks of trying to reason with eggynack.
Except they aren't pretending. As they've demonstrated before they are hostile and would genuinely injure her once they've dealt with their mutual enemies, with that hostility ceasing upon apology of spellcasting.


The sincerity of the hostility is somewhat called into question by the whole pact between friends thing. Beyond that, the underlying issue regarding the integrity of the narrative remains - that pact and the resulting scenes come off as kind of ridiculous, and while that can be downplayed via the right role playing (and sounds like it has been), it's still a bit off in the general case.

I'll put it this way. I have a large friendly dog who is gentle and tolerant in any setting, even with a four year old tugging on his fur or being accosted by other dogs, except when he has been given a bone and you've approached him. He loves us, but if he's been given a bone he'll run out to the back yard and will growl at anyone who comes to close and actually attack if someone attempts to steal it.

He is my friend and ally, but under certain conditions he will become genuinely hostile, and as soon as those conditions are removed hostility will cease. Now if that is the case with a dog, how can it not be the case with humanoids? Especially considering these humanoids have proved their hostility is serious (since they needed to for it to work) to the point where they will physically attack?

[Vogonjeltz]

Except they aren't pretending. As they've demonstrated before they are hostile and would genuinely injure her once they've dealt with their mutual enemies, with that hostility ceasing upon apology of spellcasting.



I'll put it this way. I have a large friendly dog who is gentle and tolerant in any setting, even with a four year old tugging on his fur or being accosted by other dogs, except when he has been given a bone and you've approached him. He loves us, but if he's been given a bone he'll run out to the back yard and will growl at anyone who comes to close and actually attack if someone attempts to steal it.

He is my friend and ally, but under certain conditions he will become genuinely hostile, and as soon as those conditions are removed hostility will cease. Now if that is the case with a dog, how can it not be the case with humanoids? Especially considering these humanoids have proved their hostility is serious (since they needed to for it to work) to the point where they will physically attack?

In the latter case your former ally would not have healing you on their mind. The fact that there's a predetermined ruse going on completely undermines the claim of actual hostility. Either they are hostile, and you are fighting each other, or they are not, and you aren't.

[Eslin]

In the latter case your former ally would not have healing you on their mind. The fact that there's a predetermined ruse going on completely undermines the claim of actual hostility. Either they are hostile, and you are fighting each other, or they are not, and you aren't.

You realise hostility can be one sided, right? The dog gets defensive and hostile, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly hostile towards him. I like him just as much as I ever have. It works in this instance because the barbarian declares himself hostile and will attack her once their mutual enemies are dealt with, and this is backed up by having attacked her before for the same cause. It's not fake hostility, we know he will attempt to injure her unless she casts a spell or apologises, not sure what else you want here.

And even if they're hostile towards each other, the buffer is aware that such hostilities will cease once she casts a spell, so it's in her best interests do so so even if she's hostile (though why would she be?)

[Tenmujiin]

The way I see it there are two interpritations of hostile here, one allows you to make being the party buff dispenser interesting, the other does not. While I agree that the second is more reasonable the first is still a legitimate interpritation. In sessions I DM I will be houseruling that the target doesn't need to be hostile so that the first interpritation isn't necessary but that doesn't change the fact that it is a legitimate way to interpret the rules (even if you wouldn't interpret it that way yourself).

Ultimately allowing warcaster to work on allies doesn't break intra party balance (it makes everyone but the warcaster user stronger) and encounters are easily scaled up, particually in this edition and makes one of the classic party roles much more interesting so I don't see a reason not to allow it.

Also, to those saying warcaster is cantrip only. Iy can be used to cast ANY spell with a cast time of 1 action, you could drop dominate monster, power word kill or maze on anyone who triggers a reaction from you.

[Safety Sword]

Except they are hostile. Hostile isn't a word given in game definition, it's not a status...


RaW, this works.

It's not defined as a game term because it's bleeding obvious to any reasonable person that it's not someone who is in your party.

Stop saying this works by RAW. It doesn't unless you make a ridiculous assumption. An assumption which isn't legal or available to you in the rules of the game. It is unreasonable to assume any DM would rule it this way.

{Scrubbed}

[Eslin]

It's not defined as a game term because it's bleeding obvious to any reasonable person that it's not someone who is in your party.

Stop saying this works by RAW. It doesn't unless you make a ridiculous assumption. An assumption which isn't legal or available to you in the rules of the game. It is unreasonable to assume any DM would rule it this way.

If you think any other way I'd assume you were trolling.

Except it's not an assumption. If a trigger has occurred and someone is now planning to attack you as soon as they get the chance (after you're done fighting your mutual enemies) and has demonstrated several times before that once they get that chance they will indeed repeatedly try to hurt you, that's hostility. That's 100% RaW hostility - if you want merely good enough, just go with them shouting at you or being hostile in general since it doesn't specify towards you.

[Safety Sword]

Except it's not an assumption. If a trigger has occurred and someone is now planning to attack you as soon as they get the chance (after you're done fighting your mutual enemies) and has demonstrated several times before that once they get that chance they will indeed repeatedly try to hurt you, that's hostility. That's 100% RaW hostility - if you want merely good enough, just go with them shouting at you or being hostile in general since it doesn't specify towards you.

I am going to indulge your ridiculousness. Do not take this as a sign I think you've got a valid point here...

The scenario as explained before with your barbarian "threatening" you.

If this is the result of a pattern of behaviours from this uncouth mass of whirling muscle:
Tell me again why you're buffing someone who wants to hurt you?
Why do you adventure with this lunatic?
Why do you let this guy use you when you are a powerful adventurer in your own right?
Does your deity routinely give their greatest gift to such weak willed victims?

[Eslin]

I am going to indulge your ridiculousness. Do not take this as a sign I think you've got a valid point here...

The scenario as explained before with your barbarian "threatening" you.

If this is the result of a pattern of behaviours from this uncouth mass of whirling muscle:
Tell me again why you're buffing someone who wants to hurt you?
Why do you adventure with this lunatic?
Why do you let this guy use you when you are a powerful adventurer in your own right?
Does your deity routinely give their greatest gift to such weak willed victims?

Let me respond with the situation the players actually have going:

Because he wants to hurt you because you prearranged him being hostile towards you, since after a lot of trial and error you discovered hostility was the key to being able to cast spells so quickly.
Because he's a steadfast ally, an honourable man who keeps his oath no matter what.
How is that using you? You arranged this system so you could cast more efficiently, and you're presently researching a way to do it without the bother of requiring hostility.
Bard, doesn't have a deity.

[Safety Sword]

Let me respond with the situation the players actually have going:

Because he wants to hurt you because you prearranged him being hostile towards you, since after a lot of trial and error you discovered hostility was the key to being able to cast spells so quickly.
Because he's a steadfast ally, an honourable man who keeps his oath no matter what.
How is that using you? You arranged this system so you could cast more efficiently, and you're presently researching a way to do it without the bother of requiring hostility.
Bard, doesn't have a deity.

Prearranged hostility towards yourself? That is nonsensical.

If you weren't using the misleading assertion that this was RAW I would have laughed this thread off. Because it is amusing when people twist the context this much that the laughable happens. The worry is that I think you actually will try and justify this at some poor DMs table. And I feel sorry for them.

[Eslin]

Prearranged hostility towards yourself? That is nonsensical.

If you weren't using the misleading assertion that this was RAW I would have laughed this thread off. Because it is amusing when people twist the context this much that the laughable happens. The worry is that I think you actually will try and justify this at some poor DMs table. And I feel sorry for them.

Prearranged hostility towards the buffing characters, for purposes of improved buffing. The character needs to be a master of doublethink or willing to go through with their promise of harming the buffer if they aren't buffed, but it does work.

Once more, I'll remind you that being able to cast spells on passing enemies but not on passing allies makes no sense from an in universe perspective.

[Gwendol]

Prearranged hostility towards the buffing characters, for purposes of improved buffing. The character needs to be a master of doublethink or willing to go through with their promise of harming the buffer if they aren't buffed, but it does work.

Once more, I'll remind you that being able to cast spells on passing enemies but not on passing allies makes no sense from an in universe perspective.

Taking turns in fighting doesn't make sense either, but them are the rules. In your mind this distinction makes no sense, and also in your mind is buffing allies on your turn boring. Don't try and make that universal.

[Safety Sword]

Prearranged hostility towards the buffing characters, for purposes of improved buffing. The character needs to be a master of doublethink or willing to go through with their promise of harming the buffer if they aren't buffed, but it does work.

Once more, I'll remind you that being able to cast spells on passing enemies but not on passing allies makes no sense from an in universe perspective.

A master of doublethink? Are you serious right now? Is that a defined game term?

Casting spells at an enemy. They still get whatever defence mechanism applies, whether it is a save or you needing to make your spell attack roll. It's not exactly free. There is a distinction.

You're talking about a universe where every character is a paranoid wreck because their party members charge maniacally at them to get buff spells and the thing you're worried about is who you can cast your reaction spells at? I think you'd have bigger problems.

You're trying to get something for nothing, at that's a sure way to ruin the game.

[Eslin]

A master of doublethink? Are you serious right now? Is that a defined game term?
No it isn't a defined game term, nor is hostile.


Casting spells at an enemy. They still get whatever defence mechanism applies, whether it is a save or you needing to make your spell attack roll. It's not exactly free. There is a distinction.
What distinction is that, exactly? Your allies have that same defence mechanism, why can't you cast on them?


You're talking about a universe where every character is a paranoid wreck because their party members charge maniacally at them to get buff spells and the thing you're worried about is who you can cast your reaction spells at? I think you'd have bigger problems.

You're trying to get something for nothing, at that's a sure way to ruin the game.
Why would they be a paranoid wreck? I said the first time I mentioned it that they become hostile as soon as the buffer signals they need to, this is an agreement amongst party members.
And trying to get more out of your feats is not going to wreck the game. Again, it can be used to help everyone except yourself - as exploits go, I think this is a fantastic one.

[Safety Sword]

No it isn't a defined game term, nor is hostile.


What distinction is that, exactly? Your allies have that same defence mechanism, why can't you cast on them?


Why would they be a paranoid wreck? I said the first time I mentioned it that they become hostile as soon as the buffer signals they need to, this is an agreement amongst party members.
And trying to get more out of your feats is not going to wreck the game. Again, it can be used to help everyone except yourself - as exploits go, I think this is a fantastic one.

I believe that everyone I've ever spoken to about D&D knows what the intention of the word "hostile" is in the combat section of the PHB. Everyone except you that is, Eslin. It is well defined by way of the actual definition of the word.

As for why can't I cast on my allies with my reaction. Stay with me, this is a radical concept. It's called "the rules". The rules of D&D 5th Edition do not mention that my character, whether he be a master of doublethink, an apprentice of quadruple think or a king of linear think, the ability to cast buff spells on my allies with my reaction in the abstract representation of combat that is presented. It is therefore not a rule as written, because, it isn't written.

It does allow me to use my reaction to cast a spell at a hostile (see: enemy combatant, oh dear, where are those terms defined?) as an opportunity attack. I can see it, typed up all neatly in that book with the rules in it.

Feel free to throw yours away if you like. Write a new one where you can buff allies with your reaction, be hostile to your friends from one second to the next to make the rules "consistent", be master of Jedi mind powers so you can get a bless spell, whatever. I have a working title for you: House Rules.

[Eslin]

I believe that everyone I've ever spoken to about D&D knows what the intention of the word "hostile" is in the combat section of the PHB. Everyone except you that is, Eslin. It is well defined by way of the actual definition of the word.
And having that person clearly planning on attacking you fulfills that definition.


As for why can't I cast on my allies with my reaction. Stay with me, this is a radical concept. It's called "the rules". The rules of D&D 5th Edition do not mention that my character, whether he be a master of doublethink, an apprentice of quadruple think or a king of linear think, the ability to cast buff spells on my allies with my reaction in the abstract representation of combat that is presented. It is therefore not a rule as written, because, it isn't written.
Yes, and the rules say I can cast a spell on someone who provokes an attack of opportunity, and as discussed my party mates can provok attacks of opportunity.


It does allow me to use my reaction to cast a spell at a hostile (see: enemy combatant, oh dear, where are those terms defined?) as an opportunity attack. I can see it, typed up all neatly in that book with the rules in it.

Feel free to throw yours away if you like. Write a new one where you can buff allies with your reaction, be hostile to your friends from one second to the next to make the rules "consistent", be master of Jedi mind powers so you can get a bless spell, whatever. I have a working title for you: House Rules.
In future, I will do that. The hostility trick is amusing, but requiring a pact where the buffee attempts to murder the person buffing him unless they buff him or apologise is needlessly complicated so by the next game I'll just houserule it to 'you can use your reaction to cast a spell on an ally who is within 5 feet of you'. Until then, however, sticking to the rules as written where they need to be hostile is pretty funny.

[archaeo]

No it isn't a defined game term, nor is hostile.

C'mon man, this is just about as RAW as "me and my horse fire cone of cold" or "I push the enemy up into the air." If you want to play the game this way, nobody's stopping you, but it's still some really absurd rules lawyering just to reach an unbalanced and counterintuitive result.

It's one thing to see this as a funny thing worthy of a discussion and a laugh; defending it as the way the game is meant to be played really seems to stretch credulity.

[WickerNipple]

What makes me sad about this thread is I genuinely respect quality rules-lawyering and clever loop-holing.

Sadly this is neither.

They explicitly defined ally/enemy last edition. I guess they felt a basic grasp of english was enough to make that unnecessary this time.

[Eslin]

C'mon man, this is just about as RAW as "me and my horse fire cone of cold" or "I push the enemy up into the air." If you want to play the game this way, nobody's stopping you, but it's still some really absurd rules lawyering just to reach an unbalanced and counterintuitive result.

It's one thing to see this as a funny thing worthy of a discussion and a laugh; defending it as the way the game is meant to be played really seems to stretch credulity.

The find steed doublecasting range: self(cone/cube/line) thing is an incredibly tortured reading of the rules and more importantly grants power and versatility to classes that already have lots of both, RaW it might work if you squint hard enough, but from a fun perspective it's a disaster because it unbalances things.

Pushing enemies into the air is 100% rules legal. The rules are clear, the enemy is pushed directly away from you, so if you manage to angle things so that you're pushing the enemy upwards then you push the enemy upwards. I'm not sure what you're going for with that one, since it's clearly how the game works.

Onto the meat of the subject, how is it unbalanced or counterintuitive? It is very much intuitive, since it fixes something that makes no sense in-universe, namely that you can cast on passing hostiles but somehow stop being able to if they're your friend. And balance wise it boosts everyone except for you - it's rare that a piece of rules loopholery benefits anyone but the one doing it, and this one goes the extra mile by making the user unable to benefit from it.

[WickerNipple]

Onto the meat of the subject, how is it unbalanced or counterintuitive? It is very much intuitive, since it fixes something that makes no sense in-universe, namely that you can cast on passing hostiles but somehow stop being able to if they're your friend. And balance wise it boosts everyone except for you - it's rare that a piece of rules loopholery benefits anyone but the one doing it, and this one goes the extra mile by making the user unable to benefit from it.

It's not necessarily unbalanced or counter-intuitive, it's just not what the feat does.

Homebrew a feat that works if you like, I don't think it would break anything. I'd object to tacking it onto Warcaster cause Warcaster doesn't need a buff.

Just don't tell me this is RAW. Cause lulz.

[archaeo]

Pushing enemies into the air is 100% rules legal. The rules are clear, the enemy is pushed directly away from you, so if you manage to angle things so that you're pushing the enemy upwards then you push the enemy upwards. I'm not sure what you're going for with that one, since it's clearly how the game works.

I don't know, Eslin, it seems abundantly clear that absolutely nowhere in the rules is it made obvious that you can "push up," even if you somehow get the angle right.

Maybe we're just always going to be at an impasse about reading RAW. I think 5e is written with the intention of asking readers to pay attention to the rules actually written in the text; you seem to be drawing your reading from the absence of specific forbidding rules. If Mearls & Co. had wanted you to juggle enemies like you were playing Super Smash Bros: the RPG, they presumably would've actually written rules about it instead of expecting clever Halflings to dig pits for themselves so they can push up at enemies above.


Onto the meat of the subject, how is it unbalanced or counterintuitive? It is very much intuitive, since it fixes something that makes no sense in-universe, namely that you can cast on passing hostiles but somehow stop being able to if they're your friend.

It makes perfect sense, insofar as D&D combat is a gamist abstraction of actual combat, and attacks of opportunity are deliberately flavored as "You are struck while disengaging from a foe." The game isn't suggesting that all fights in its universe take place with each combatant politely taking turns, after all.

This is like chafing against the notion that you can only take one reaction per round. This kind of abstraction has a balance purpose -- reactions are powerful, and allowing them freely would slow combat to a crawl -- and requires players to accept that "fun" and "realism" have to be balanced against one another. Reactions like AOO work the way they do to enable fun combats, and breaking it because it's more "intuitive" is just breaking the abstraction for the sake of avoiding a bit of handwavery.


And balance wise it boosts everyone except for you - it's rare that a piece of rules loopholery benefits anyone but the one doing it, and this one goes the extra mile by making the user unable to benefit from it.

It seems rather absurd to suggest that there'd be no balance repercussions for giving anybody with War Caster the ability to take their reaction to cast buffs on the party. It's called War Caster for a reason, after all.

[Gwendol]

Not to mention removing a tactical aspect of the game namely action resource planning: do I attack or buff with my action?

[Eslin]

I don't know, Eslin, it seems abundantly clear that absolutely nowhere in the rules is it made obvious that you can "push up," even if you somehow get the angle right.

Maybe we're just always going to be at an impasse about reading RAW. I think 5e is written with the intention of asking readers to pay attention to the rules actually written in the text; you seem to be drawing your reading from the absence of specific forbidding rules. If Mearls & Co. had wanted you to juggle enemies like you were playing Super Smash Bros: the RPG, they presumably would've actually written rules about it instead of expecting clever Halflings to dig pits for themselves so they can push up at enemies above.
Nor is it obvious you can "push down" or "push sideways" because all it is is moving someone in a direction. If I hit a target with repelling blast, they are repelled 10 feet away from me, there is no reason that if I am underneath them they would not be pushed up. The absence of forbidding rules makes no sense here - the rules explain what you can do, rules explaining what you cannot do are not necessary. You are told you can move 30 feet, which means you don't need a rule saying that you can't teleport 500 feat whenever you want to, since the rules tell you how you can move and they don't say you can move by teleporting 500 feet. The rules tell you what you can do, and you can push people away from you, there is no reason to think that includes every direction except up.



It makes perfect sense, insofar as D&D combat is a gamist abstraction of actual combat, and attacks of opportunity are deliberately flavored as "You are struck while disengaging from a foe." The game isn't suggesting that all fights in its universe take place with each combatant politely taking turns, after all.

This is like chafing against the notion that you can only take one reaction per round. This kind of abstraction has a balance purpose -- reactions are powerful, and allowing them freely would slow combat to a crawl -- and requires players to accept that "fun" and "realism" have to be balanced against one another. Reactions like AOO work the way they do to enable fun combats, and breaking it because it's more "intuitive" is just breaking the abstraction for the sake of avoiding a bit of handwavery.
Except I'm not breaking it, you can still only make one reaction. There's just no good reason you can only make that reaction against an enemy, not an ally. You should be able make an opportunity attack against anyone, allies included - if an enemy moves past you, they leave an opening, but surely the same goes for an ally? The only reason that is not relevant to anything is there is no reason to want to make an attack of opportunity against an ally - at least until now.


It seems rather absurd to suggest that there'd be no balance repercussions for giving anybody with War Caster the ability to take their reaction to cast buffs on the party. It's called War Caster for a reason, after all.
As opposed to needing to rapidly combat buff your allies for peaceful reasons? How's that not war casting?
There are three sets of repercussions:
One, the party overall becomes slightly stronger. Interpersonal balance is not affected, but the party itself now have slightly expanded capabilities.
Two, buffing as a whole becomes more fun. Instead of being a tactically dull, unreactive way of spending the entirety of your turn, you now need to think and place yourself so an ally will go past to buff them and can spend your actual action doing something.
Three, the game world makes a little more sense (since now a confusing arbitrary restriction that makes no sense to the characters) is lifted, but in order to take advantage of it your party has to engage in a complex arrangement of signalled hostility. That last part is why I'm just going to homerule it into the whole melee reaction thing mentioned above - but even without that, it's legal and has a positive effect.


Not to mention removing a tactical aspect of the game namely action resource planning: do I attack or buff with my action?
It clearly adds tactical aspects of gameplay, and it doesn't remove any. You can use your reaction to cure wounds an ally, that doesn't mean the choice between casting an offensive or beneficial spell has been removed. Why would it?

[Fwiffo86]

I don't see a big issue here. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can see the logic. If a player wants to blow reactions to cast buff spells when:

a player leaves their threat area

and

limits themselves to only casting cantrips (as per the casting as a bonus action) during their normal action, or not casting another spell at all

I see no issue. Of course, that brings up the argument about a reaction vs bonus action I think.

[Eslin]

I don't see a big issue here. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can see the logic. If a player wants to blow reactions to cast buff spells when:

a player leaves their threat area

and

limits themselves to only casting cantrips (as per the casting as a bonus action) during their normal action, or not casting another spell at all

I see no issue. Of course, that brings up the argument about a reaction vs bonus action I think.

Yep, bonus action =/= reaction. The only restriction is the same one an offensively warcast spell incurs, that it has to be only that target even if the spell would normally allow more than one.

[Fwiffo86]

Fair enough ruling I suppose.

I still wouldn't allow it, but that is just me.

[Eslin]

Fair enough ruling I suppose.

I still wouldn't allow it, but that is just me.

I'm just houseruling it as of the next campaign we start to allow opportunity attacks on anyone, rather than just enemies - just because you don't attack an ally going past shouldn't mean you can't, there's no reason someone who trusts you would be any less vulnerable than someone trying to guard against you. That's technically a houserule, though my players are aware that's how it already works because why on earth wouldn't it work like that? So since that isn't really a houserule any more than monks being proficient with unarmed strikes in 3.5 was a houserule, the only actual change is removing the word 'hostile' from the relevant section of warcaster.

Bam, solved.

[Gwendol]

Who says unarmed strikes need proficiency? Certainly not the rules.

Again, just because you feel things ought to work a certain way don't make them universally true, no matter how much you say it.

[Eslin]

Who says unarmed strikes need proficiency? Certainly not the rules.

Again, just because you feel things ought to work a certain way don't make them universally true, no matter how much you say it.

Well, in a lot of ways they do. Monks technically weren't proficient in unarmed strikes, but in effect they were because every single table played as if they were. Is a houserule still a houserule if it is common to every house? At that point no it isn't, it's just a rule.

The rules say you have to make attacks of opportunity against a hostile creature, but no DM is ever going to say that that means you can't make an attack of opportunity against a creature that isn't hostile towards you. If you can get a strike in against someone trying to kill you because of a brief opening, you can certainly get a strike in against someone who may not even suspect you want to attack them. So while that's technically a houserule, it might as well not be.

[McBars]

The rules say you have to make attacks of opportunity against a hostile creature, but no DM is ever going to say that that means you can't make an attack of opportunity against a creature that isn't hostile towards you. If you can get a strike in against someone trying to kill you because of a brief opening, you can certainly get a strike in against someone who may not even suspect you want to attack them. So while that's technically a houserule, it might as well not be.

Of course they are not going to say that because they don't have to; the rules are quite clear that opportunity attacks are provoked by hostile creatures.

[Gwendol]

Proficiency is needed for weapons, unarmed strikes are by definition weaponless attacks. No proficiency needed.

And no houeruling either.

[Eslin]

Of course they are not going to say that because they don't have to; the rules are quite clear that opportunity attacks are provoked by hostile creatures.

Uh, ok? So did you just not read what I said at all?


Proficiency is needed for weapons, unarmed strikes are by definition weaponless attacks. No proficiency needed.

And no houeruling either.

Nope, unarmed strike was a natural attack and humanoids were the only type that wasn't automatically proficient with natural attacks, and the monk class itself did not make you proficient.

Therefore, according to the rules, monks were not proficient with unarmed strikes, and technically having them be proficient was a house rule. But if every house has the same rule, is it a house rule? Not really, no, it's just a rule.

House
------------ = rule.
House x rule

[Gwendol]

Eslin, you are stating generalizations such as "no DM will ever..."
All the while, the rules are quite clear on what exactly constitutes an opportunity attack, and it's not what you want it to be.

[Fwiffo86]

Attack =/= Buff

I'm just saying. You don't need an opening to buff someone. Especially if they are willing, which would be the assumed default condition.

[McBars]

Uh, ok? So did you just not read what I said at all?



Nope, unarmed strike was a natural attack and humanoids were the only type that wasn't automatically proficient with natural attacks, and the monk class itself did not make you proficient.

Therefore, according to the rules, monks were not proficient with unarmed strikes, and technically having them be proficient was a house rule. But if every house has the same rule, is it a house rule? Not really, no, it's just a rule.

House
------------ = rule.
House x rule

Unfortunately I did.

Being able to make opportunity attacks against foes only and not allies makes way more sense than some flimflam agreement to transiently declare yourselves hostile to one another to allow for certain spells to be cast.

And that actually = rule^-1, not rule

[Eslin]

Eslin, you are stating generalizations such as "no DM will ever..."
All the while, the rules are quite clear on what exactly constitutes an opportunity attack, and it's not what you want it to be.

And the rules were quite clear that monks weren't proficient with unarmed strikes, but nobody ever gave them the -4 penalty.

In a similar vein, if an ally leaves your reach their turn when you have a reaction remaining and you try to stab them as an opportunity attack, no DM is going to say 'you can't do that they aren't hostile towards you'. Admittedly, the DM is probably going to ask why the hell you just did that, stabbing unsuspecting allies as they walk past is very rarely good form, but he's not going to pretend that you can attack anyone going past unless they happen to be on your side.


Unfortunately I did.

Being able to make opportunity attacks against foes only and not allies makes way more sense than some flimflam agreement to transiently declare yourselves hostile to one another to allow for certain spells to be cast.

And that actually = rule^-1, not rule

No, the first one makes no sense and the second is a reaction to that making no sense. A punching B is uncalled for violence, B punching A back is not. If B follows A and both are unreasonable, B is not to blame, A is. Fix the first by making attacks of opportunity usable against anyone and the second magically fixes itself.

Houserule over rule wise, how would I phrase it? Equations are not my thing =P

[Gwendol]

An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. Don't know where you got that from.

Just as proficiency isn't required for bull rushes, tripping, or other unarmed attacks, unarmed strikes are not made with a weapon and don't require proficiency.

This is however not the appropriate forum for this discussion, so I'm leaving the topic here. If you want to discuss it further I suggest you PM Vogon or myself, we'll point you to the relevant rules texts.

[Eslin]

An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. Don't know where you got that from.

Just as proficiency isn't required for bull rushes, tripping, or other unarmed attacks, unarmed strikes are not made with a weapon and don't require proficiency.

This is however not the appropriate forum for this discussion, so I'm leaving the topic here. If you want to discuss it further I suggest you PM Vogon or myself, we'll point you to the relevant rules texts.

Natural weapons and manufactured weapons are both weapons, and weapons require proficiency. This is pretty cut and dried, all types other than humanoids have natural weapon proficiency, so a humanoid monk is not proficient with its unarmed strikes.

[silveralen]

It's absolutely silly to say this is RAW or RAI. The best you can say is its DM fiat by RAW due to ambiguity.

On the other hand, they can only do it once, uses up a spell slot, reaction, can't target multiple creatures, and requires feat tax, one I see people avoiding in favor of resilient (con) for the most part. So it doesn't actually look unbalanced to me and I'd probably house rule the feat to allow for it.

[Eslin]

It's absolutely silly to say this is RAW or RAI. The best you can say is its DM fiat by RAW due to ambiguity.

On the other hand, they can only do it once, uses up a spell slot, reaction, can't target multiple creatures, and requires feat tax, one I see people avoiding in favor of resilient (con) for the most part. So it doesn't actually look unbalanced to me and I'd probably house rule the feat to allow for it.

As stated, exactly what I'm doing. Take the word 'hostile' out of the feat, it has its own cost in terms of taking a feat and requiring positioning and makes things more fun, I'm all for it.

[WickerNipple]

It's absolutely silly to say this is RAW or RAI.

Thankfully he's not arguing that anymore. Now he's saying he'll houserule hostile out of the rules - thus making this a non issue for anyone not at his table. Problem solved.

[Eslin]

Thankfully he's not arguing that anymore. Now he's saying he'll houserule hostile out of the rules - thus making this a non issue for anyone not at his table. Problem solved.

Hm? Yes I am. The hostility part of it is easy to circumvent, you just make an arrangement similar to the one my players made. To avoid constraining them into having to make a similar arrangement in future games I'm houseruling the word hostile out of the feat, but it works fine RaW as long as you have the party members genuinely hostile for a very specific duration.

And once more, the idea that a bard can cast polymorph on a passing orc but not on his own party members is ludicrous, makes no sense in-universe.

[Easy_Lee]

Hey, I've got a brilliant idea: rule how you want at your own table, and stop arguing pointlessly about it in this thread! No matter how sound your argument, emotions are too high for either side to give an inch at this point.

If your DM makes a rule you don't like, I invite you to get up and find a new table.

[silveralen]

Yeah, the discussion moved on while I was typing. Blame my phone keyboard. I think it is a good house rule myself.

[WickerNipple]

Hey, I've got a brilliant idea: rule how you want at your own table, and stop arguing pointlessly about it in this thread! No matter how sound your argument, emotions are too high for either side to give an inch at this point..

Does this also apply to mounts and saves?


RaW as long as you have the party members genuinely hostile for a very specific duration.

:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: Nevermind. I take it back.

[Knaight]

And once more, the idea that a bard can cast polymorph on a passing orc but not on his own party members is ludicrous, makes no sense in-universe.
On the other hand, the idea that a sufficiently trained caster might have a defensive instinct to take a shot at an enemy while not having the werewithal to assist allies at extremely short notice is hardly ludicrous. The lizard-brain is faster than higher cognition (to avoid technical terms).

[Safety Sword]

And once more, the idea that a bard can cast polymorph on a passing orc but not on his own party members is ludicrous, makes no sense in-universe.

Go and play paintball with your friends. I guarantee that at some stage whilst you're focused to the enemy team shooting or rushing at you that you will lose track of where your team mates go as they take cover from the same enemies. It's quite natural to keep your eye on the threat and not on your allies.

The rules actually do make a bit of sense sometimes.

[Xetheral]

The discrepancy is a weakness of the model that is the rule system. (That's not a judgment on the system, just an observation.) When designing the War Caster feat, the writers didn't think about the dissonance they were creating. At this point one has several options:

1) Assume the model is perfect, treat the apparent dissonance as insight, and extrapolate that there is no logical reason that beneficial spells couldn't be cast in similar circumstances, thus permitting cantrip buffs and healing as a reaction. (Either as a ruling or a houserule, depending on your definitions of the terms.)

2) Assume the model is perfect, and extrapolate a reason to IC explain-away the apparent dissonance that buff spells can't be cast in such circumstances.

3) Ignore the accidental dissonance and play the game as written, with OAs only being provoked by actual foes. If players try to treat their actual allies as foes, ask them nicely to stop.

4) Ignore the accidental dissonance and play the game as written, with OAs only being provoked by actual foes. If players try to treat their actual allies as foes, do an in-depth philosophical analysis of what it means to be a foe and whether players have successfully met this bar at your table.

5) Create a houserule to change that part of the game to be whatever you want it to be.A neutral post explaining the situation and giving a set of logical, concise answers to how one might deal with it and why. I can't give +1 or anything in this forum, best I can do is look forward to your responses in future threads.

Thanks for the compliment!


Well, in a lot of ways they do. Monks technically weren't proficient in unarmed strikes, but in effect they were because every single table played as if they were. Is a houserule still a houserule if it is common to every house? At that point no it isn't, it's just a rule.

The rules say you have to make attacks of opportunity against a hostile creature, but no DM is ever going to say that that means you can't make an attack of opportunity against a creature that isn't hostile towards you. If you can get a strike in against someone trying to kill you because of a brief opening, you can certainly get a strike in against someone who may not even suspect you want to attack them. So while that's technically a houserule, it might as well not be.

(Emphasis added) I must respectfully disagree: as a DM I would never let a player make an Attack of Opportunity against a non-hostile creature.

Why? Because I use the rule system to model player interaction with my game world. As I general rule, I refuse to take the minutiae of the model I'm using and use it to draw conclusions about how my game world works. Attacks of Opportunity model the consequences of letting one's guard down against a foe; they don't represent how hard or time-consuming it is to make that attack. Consequentially, I don't believe War Caster's unfortunately-dissonant mechanic of replacing that attack with a spell has any relevance at all to when or how players should be able to buff (or betray!) their allies.

Even if a player wanted their character to betray another party member, I still wouldn't use the attack-of-opportunity rules, because that's not the most appropriate part of the model. Instead, I'd ask the player to make a normal action, potentially providing advantage, in-combat surprise, or some other mechanical benefit to better model the unsuspecting nature of the victim. If for some reason the player specifically wanted their character to make the attack in a tactical situation that would have provoked an attack of opportunity had the target been hostile, I would use the ready-an-action rules instead, offering similar bonuses.

Monks being proficient with unarmed strikes was an oversight that most players probably never even noticed. It was such an obvious oversight that fixing it was indeed nigh-universal and uncontroversial. By contrast, allowing players to take attacks of opportunity against allies only makes sense if one subscribes to option #1 (and potentially options #2 and #5) as I described above in the post you appreciated. For (at least) those who subscribe to options #3 or #4, making attacks of opportunity against allies simply doesn't make any sense.

Accordingly, a significant portion of the community is likely to disallow attacks of opportunity against allies. Thus, this is a very different situation than monk unarmed-strike proficiency, and I think your comparison is therefore flawed.

[Vogonjeltz]

You realise hostility can be one sided, right? The dog gets defensive and hostile, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly hostile towards him. I like him just as much as I ever have. It works in this instance because the barbarian declares himself hostile and will attack her once their mutual enemies are dealt with, and this is backed up by having attacked her before for the same cause. It's not fake hostility, we know he will attempt to injure her unless she casts a spell or apologises, not sure what else you want here.

In the dog example it's not actual hostility, it's possessiveness or defensiveness. The dog would still come to your aid if some stranger attacked you in front of them. Hence, it is still your ally even if it is willing to stop you from stealing from it. Repeatedly misusing the word hostile does not make your position true.


The way I see it there are two interpritations of hostile here,

See, this is exactly where attempts to misconstrue language trip up others.

This is the definition of hostile:


unfriendly; antagonistic. "a hostile audience"

synonyms: unfriendly, unkind, bitter, unsympathetic, malicious, vicious, rancorous, venomous, poisonous, virulent; More
antagonistic, aggressive, confrontational, belligerent, truculent, vitriolic;
bellicose, pugnacious, warlike "a hostile attack"

antonyms: friendly, mild

• of or belonging to a military enemy. "hostile aircraft"

• opposed. "people are very hostile to the idea"

synonyms: opposed to, averse to, antagonistic to, ill-disposed to, disapproving of, unsympathetic to, antipathetic to; More

What Eslin is describing is not that, it is pretend, specifically feigned:


simulated or pretended; insincere. "her eyes widened with feigned shock"

Middle English: from Old French feign-, stem of feindre, from Latin fingere ‘mold, contrive.’ Senses in Middle English (taken from Latin) included ‘make something,’ ‘invent a story, excuse, or allegation,’ hence ‘make a pretense of a feeling or response’ Compare with fiction and figment.

The characters are making a pretense of a feeling, however we the authors of that activity know it to be a falsehood. Hence, they are not hostile.


No it isn't a defined game term, nor is hostile.

I'm glad we can agree you are using it incorrectly, as a word in the english language and not a specially defined game term.

If you want to discuss the merits of blanketly allowing characters to use their reaction (what are they reacting to exactly?) to cast spells at allies, that deserves its own thread. This one is about what provokes an Opportunity Attack.


An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. Don't know where you got that from.

Just as proficiency isn't required for bull rushes, tripping, or other unarmed attacks, unarmed strikes are not made with a weapon and don't require proficiency.

This is however not the appropriate forum for this discussion, so I'm leaving the topic here. If you want to discuss it further I suggest you PM Vogon or myself, we'll point you to the relevant rules texts.

Ditto that. Eslin: The 3.5 PHB Glossary has the relevant explanation of what an Unarmed Strike and an Unarmed Attack are, in that set of rules. For your convenience, it's alphabetical.

[Jakinbandw]

So question: A bard casts Friends on his party. After one minute the spell ends. The party is now considered hostile toward the bard by the rules of the spell. It does not state that this hostile state has a duration. This then fulfills the requirement that the person be hostile does it not? The bard can now buff his party as an opportunity attack because by the spell they are hostile. RAW. No messy interpretations needed.

Am I wrong on this?

[silveralen]

So question: A bard casts Friends on his party. After one minute the spell ends. The party is now considered hostile toward the bard by the rules of the spell. It does not state that this hostile state has a duration. This then fulfills the requirement that the person be hostile does it not? The bard can now buff his party as an opportunity attack because by the spell they are hostile. RAW. No messy interpretations needed.

Am I wrong on this?

How the creature handles that hostility is at the DM's discretion as well by RAW. Which means your DM, tired of your constant rule bending annoyance, has the entire party gang up and kill your character as an object lesson. Afterwards he makes a point of showing it was completely legal by RAW. But hey, at least you could buff them before they beat you into a bloody pulp :smallbiggrin:

[Jakinbandw]

How the creature handles that hostility is at the DM's discretion as well by RAW. Which means your DM, tired of your constant rule bending annoyance, has the entire party gang up and kill your character as an object lesson. Afterwards he makes a point of showing it was completely legal by RAW. But hey, at least you could buff them before they beat you into a bloody pulp :smallbiggrin:

Hmm... I'm kinda surprised there is no rule stopping DMs from taking over PCs and making them take actions they don't want to. At least I can't find one. Maybe there'll be one in the DMG. :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

So question: A bard casts Friends on his party. After one minute the spell ends. The party is now considered hostile toward the bard by the rules of the spell. It does not state that this hostile state has a duration. This then fulfills the requirement that the person be hostile does it not? The bard can now buff his party as an opportunity attack because by the spell they are hostile. RAW. No messy interpretations needed.

Am I wrong on this?

Heh. So now there is a use for Friends. :)

Personally, I think I'd go with Xetheral's option #1, "treat the dissonance as insight" (and try to create a generalized theory of reactions).

[silveralen]

Hmm... I'm kinda surprised there is no rule stopping DMs from taking over PCs and making them take actions they don't want to. At least I can't find one. Maybe there'll be one in the DMG. :smalltongue:

Even if there was... specific beats general :smallwink:

[Eslin]

So question: A bard casts Friends on his party. After one minute the spell ends. The party is now considered hostile toward the bard by the rules of the spell. It does not state that this hostile state has a duration. This then fulfills the requirement that the person be hostile does it not? The bard can now buff his party as an opportunity attack because by the spell they are hostile. RAW. No messy interpretations needed.

Am I wrong on this?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh my god I can't believe they all missed that and I did too, that's amazing.

[silveralen]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh my god I can't believe they all missed that and I did too, that's amazing.

Well, as pointed out it doesn't actually work. When it wears off, the DM explicitly takes control of the player characters, or at least heavily adjudicates their reactions. Which is a great way to piss off the other characters and other players. Trying it has a very low life expectancy.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, as pointed out it doesn't actually work. When it wears off, the DM explicitly takes control of the player characters, or at least heavily adjudicates their reactions. Which is a great way to piss off the other characters and other players. Trying it has a very low life expectancy.

Now I've got to step in there. At no point in a good D&D game should the DM take control of a player. A mind-controlled player? Maybe, but even that's iffy as far as I'm concerned. Telling players their reactions, or what to do, is all-around a bad practice.

[Sartharina]

Those clauses on "Friends" and "Charm Person" absolutely ruin the spells. Sure, I could see the 'you get a hostile reaction when the spell wears off' if you used the spell to take advantage of someone (Such as, say, making them 'donate' all their possessions including the clothes on their back to you), but not for something as simple as making a good first impression.

[Eslin]

Those clauses on "Friends" and "Charm Person" absolutely ruin the spells. Sure, I could see the 'you get a hostile reaction when the spell wears off' if you used the spell to take advantage of someone (Such as, say, making them 'donate' all their possessions including the clothes on their back to you), but not for something as simple as making a good first impression.

Yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. On the plus side, the whole unlimited duration hostility thing means I like the friends spell a lot more now that it can be used to game the rules.

[silveralen]

Now I've got to step in there. At no point in a good D&D game should the DM take control of a player. A mind-controlled player? Maybe, but even that's iffy as far as I'm concerned. Telling players their reactions, or what to do, is all-around a bad practice.

We aren't talking about what people should do, I'm just pointing out that by RAW that's exactly what should happen should a player try to use this loophole.

In a good DnD game, the player would tell the DM what he wanted to do (cast buffs via reaction) explain why he thought it was okay (warcaster, etc) and the DM would decide whether or not to allow it.

If the player tries to game that system by trying to use friends to create a weird effect, the other unintended consequences are his fault.

[Eslin]

We aren't talking about what people should do, I'm just pointing out that by RAW that's exactly what should happen should a player try to use this loophole.

In a good DnD game, the player would tell the DM what he wanted to do (cast buffs via reaction) explain why he thought it was okay (warcaster, etc) and the DM would decide whether or not to allow it.

If the player tries to game that system by trying to use friends to create a weird effect, the other unintended consequences are his fault.

Eh, just tell him about Friends, makes it work perfectly without all that effort =P

[Kornaki]

I just want to add one more thought to the "does it make sense I can attack but not buff as a reaction".

It could very well be that casting attack spells only takes a bonus actions worth of time instead of a full action, but the act of aiming it takes additional time that turns it into a regular action.

[Eslin]

I just want to add one more thought to the "does it make sense I can attack but not buff as a reaction".

It could very well be that casting attack spells only takes a bonus actions worth of time instead of a full action, but the act of aiming it takes additional time that turns it into a regular action.

Either way you're casting the spell on one person who has just provoked an opportunity attack, not sure what that has to do with attack vs buff.

[jkat718]

Either way you're casting the spell on one person who has just provoked an opportunity attack, not sure what that has to do with attack vs buff.

I think what Kornaki was trying to say was that attack spells are always a bonus action, but buffs are a full action, and that the reason they are normally the same casting time is that you must aim an attack spell, which makes up for the time difference. If I am correct, then I'm assuming his argument is that, since an OA is a reflexive action that doesn't take much aiming, you can cast an attack spell without aiming, and therefore not take as much time to cast it. Kornaki, correct me if I am misinterpreting your argument.

[Eslin]

I think what Kornaki was trying to say was that attack spells are always a bonus action, but buffs are a full action, and that the reason they are normally the same casting time is that you must aim an attack spell, which makes up for the time difference. If I am correct, then I'm assuming his argument is that, since an OA is a reflexive action that doesn't take much aiming, you can cast an attack spell without aiming, and therefore not take as much time to cast it. Kornaki, correct me if I am misinterpreting your argument.

Oh, that makes sense. Well, it doesn't make sense, that's the clearest case of inventing evidence to fit the theory I've ever seen, but I do get what you mean. Though it doesn't explain melee range spells having a casting time of an action.

[Sartharina]

Oh, that makes sense. Well, it doesn't make sense, that's the clearest case of inventing evidence to fit the theory I've ever seen, but I do get what you mean. Though it doesn't explain melee range spells having a casting time of an action.Still have to aim for a gap in their defenses.

[Galen]

that's the clearest case of inventing evidence to fit the theory I've ever seen It's not a theory though. Being unable to target allies with opportunity attacks is a fact, not a theory. No one needs to prove it. Your assumption that targeting enemies with OAs and targeting allies with OAs is the same - this is the theory that needs proof. And you really haven't given any, except wishful thinking.

[Eslin]

Still have to aim for a gap in their defenses.

Then spells as an attack of opportunity should be less accurate (since you can't aim) or the reaction includes aiming, in which case buffs should be allowed because both are fitting one action into one reaction.


It's not a theory though. Being unable to target allies with opportunity attacks is a fact, not a theory. No one needs to prove it. Your assumption that targeting enemies with OAs and targeting allies with OAs is the same - this is the theory that needs proof. And you really haven't given any, except wishful thinking.
{scrubbed}

You can make attacks of opportunity against enemies passing by, logically you can do the same to allies it's just for the most part you don't, because they're allies. It's not wishful thinking, it's thinking 'well that's obviously pretty daft, if I can whack someone with a stick going past there's no reason I should be suddenly unable to just because they're on my side'.

Again, won't doesn't equal can't.

[Sartharina]

Then spells as an attack of opportunity should be less accurate (since you can't aim)You don't need to aim because your enemy aimed for you.

[Safety Sword]

{scrubbed}

You can make attacks of opportunity against enemies passing by, logically you can do the same to allies it's just for the most part you don't, because they're allies. It's not wishful thinking, it's thinking 'well that's obviously pretty daft, if I can whack someone with a stick going past there's no reason I should be suddenly unable to just because they're on my side'.

Again, won't doesn't equal can't.

Then house rule it at your table. Just because you think it doesn't make sense doesn't mean that everyone else agrees.

As someone who has vast experience with hand to hand combat and combat sports I can tell you that when you're in combat with another person, in what we would call melee range in D&D, you are totally focused on what they are doing and reacting to their movements and actions. If they lose concentration on you, or try to disengage you pounce on them. That's an opportunity attack in game parlance.

However if I have other allies nearby who are in their own contests I hardly know what they are doing. And to react to their actions would be suicide as my current opponent would attack me and try to kill me as I try to do that.

The rules totally make sense in that your focus is on your enemies, not your allies, during combat. You trust your allies to do their part and cover your back whilst you engage the enemy and you do your part by taking them out to prevent harm to your allies.

Change it for your game if you like. Please stop saying that it makes sense for it to be the same for allies and enemies. It doesn't.

[Xetheral]

{scrubbed}

You can make attacks of opportunity against enemies passing by, logically you can do the same to allies it's just for the most part you don't, because they're allies.

Earlier, I pointed out (for reference: here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18405508&postcount=134)) why I feel your comparison to monk unarmed proficiency in 3.5 is flawed. I believe that a very significant proportion of the playerbase, including many reasonable people, would not let players make opportunity attacks against allies.

[Galen]

It's not wishful thinking, it's thinking 'well that's obviously pretty daft, if I can whack someone with a stick going past there's no reason I should be suddenly unable to just because they're on my side'. Yes, there is a reason.
I think Safety Sword gave a very good answer to that. The nature of a fight is that you pay more attention to whoever is about to hurt you than to anything else. That is the reason.

[Kornaki]

jkat, you described my point perfectly.

There are plenty of reasons it can make sense that OAs only work against enemies. If you hate it, change the rules for your game, but don't argue that it doesn't make sense. If you really want to, you could probably convince most people in this thread you should be allowed an actual attack spell against your ally because then you really are initiating hostilities.

[Eslin]

Yes, there is a reason.
I think Safety Sword gave a very good answer to that. The nature of a fight is that you pay more attention to whoever is about to hurt you than to anything else. That is the reason.
But that's not a good reason. There's no reason you wouldn't notice an ally running right in front of you, and in any case as a buffing character you'd be paying at least as much attention to your ally's movements of necessity.

[Galen]

There's no reason you wouldn't notice an ally running right in front of you.The reason is that you are paying more attention to your enemies than you are to him.

[Eslin]

The reason is that you are paying more attention to your enemies than you are to him.

Which is a huge generalization, and one I can definitely say isn't true. I've had the players (who are the arbiter of their character's personalities, after all) forget about monster's positions all the time, often running over to an ally and forgetting that there were goblins in the way. Obviously characters wouldn't forget that, but it's a clear indicator of who they were paying attention to.
In character wise, if you're a cleric who hasn't made a melee attack since level 5 because they swiftly become useless and only attacks with cantrips rarely when they don't have anything better to do with their actions, you're scarcely going to be paying more attention to the enemy who your allies will take care of for you than the people who depend on you to survive.

Some characters might pay more attention to the enemy, but after many life or death fights together you should know what your allies are doing without even having to think about it. An attack of opportunity on an ally should be easier than an enemy, after a while the way your allies move should be second nature to you.

[Galen]

Which is a huge generalization, and one I can definitely say isn't true. I've had the players ...Ok, I'm going to stop you right there, because there's no connection between what the players remember or pay attention to and what the characters remember or pay attention to, and any logic based on that is pointless.

As a player, I can very carefully move the miniature of my character, Faera Stormcrow, between two Orc miniatures, while eyeing both Orc miniatures at the same time, never letting either out of my sight. But the sad truth is, in the fiction world, Faera Stormcrow can't move between the two Orcs without provoking attacks of opportunity from both.

The game rules have decreed that Faera Stormcrow, by passing between the Orcs, is unable to pay attention to them, and provokes opportunity attacks. I can argue until the cows come home how stupid that is that she provokes those OAs, and how Faera Stormcrow should be able to see both Orcs, being the experienced combatant she is, and none of that would matter.

[Eslin]

Ok, I'm going to stop you right there, because there's no connection between what the players remember or pay attention to and what the characters remember or pay attention to, and any logic based on that is pointless.

As a player, I can very carefully move the miniature of my character, Faera Stormcrow, between two Orc miniatures, while eyeing both Orc miniatures at the same time, never letting either out of my sight. But the sad truth is, in the fiction world, Faera Stormcrow can't move between the two Orcs without provoking attacks of opportunity from both.

The game rules have decreed that Faera Stormcrow, by passing between the Orcs, is unable to pay attention to them, and provokes opportunity attacks. I can argue until the cows come home how stupid that is that she provokes those OAs, and how Faera Stormcrow should be able to see both Orcs, being the experienced combatant she is, and none of that would matter.
That's not unable to pay attention to them - an OA can be because she's running past and doesn't have the time or position to defend herself properly. Which is why the idea that a character can't make an OA against a friend bugs me, unlike a hostile an ally won't be trying to defend themselves against you at all, you should have a much easier time of it than you would against an enemy.

[Safety Sword]

Which is a huge generalization, and one I can definitely say isn't true. I've had the players (who are the arbiter of their character's personalities, after all) forget about monster's positions all the time, often running over to an ally and forgetting that there were goblins in the way. Obviously characters wouldn't forget that, but it's a clear indicator of who they were paying attention to.

Your players aren't in a life threatening life or death combat situation. They can afford to be forgetful.



In character wise, if you're a cleric who hasn't made a melee attack since level 5 because they swiftly become useless and only attacks with cantrips rarely when they don't have anything better to do with their actions, you're scarcely going to be paying more attention to the enemy who your allies will take care of for you than the people who depend on you to survive.

Even if you're not directly on the front line in melee you would focus on the enemy because they are the ones that will kill you. And self-preservation is a real thing.



Some characters might pay more attention to the enemy, but after many life or death fights together you should know what your allies are doing without even having to think about it. An attack of opportunity on an ally should be easier than an enemy, after a while the way your allies move should be second nature to you.

You do not always have combat in the same environment, with the same enemies, with the same capabilities. What your allies are going to do is determined by the current situation. It changes as does what you do. That's why you play out every combat and don't just say "We've fought goblins before, we do what we did last time" and you DM doesn't say "OK, you defeat the goblins." They say "Roll initiative".

[Eslin]

Your players aren't in a life threatening life or death combat situation. They can afford to be forgetful.

Even if you're not directly on the front line in melee you would focus on the enemy because they are the ones that will kill you. And self-preservation is a real thing.

You do not always have combat in the same environment, with the same enemies, with the same capabilities. What your allies are going to do is determined by the current situation. It changes as does what you do. That's why you play out every combat and don't just say "We've fought goblins before, we do what we did last time" and you DM doesn't say "OK, you defeat the goblins." They say "Roll initiative".
Which still doesn't eliminate the fact that it's easy to communicate, that allies in this situation would be deliberately provoking OAs from you and that after so much time fighting with them, keeping track of their movements should be second nature. And that even in new circumstances, you should be used enough to fighting with them that you're aware of them when they run straight in front of you.

[Safety Sword]

Which still doesn't eliminate the fact that it's easy to communicate, that allies in this situation would be deliberately provoking OAs from you and that after so much time fighting with them, keeping track of their movements should be second nature. And that even in new circumstances, you should be used enough to fighting with them that you're aware of them when they run straight in front of you.

You're still trying to get something for nothing. It's outside of the rules. It actually doesn't matter why.

The fact that we've tried to explain that there is actually some reasoning behind the game mechanics working that way seems to be lost on you. That's fine.

You're making a lot of assumptions about how well parties know each other or that they are a cohesive combat unit. That kind of thing takes intensive and frequent training.

Magic elf game = Enchanted dwarf game. Enjoy your house rules that make sense to you.

[Eslin]

You're still trying to get something for nothing. It's outside of the rules. It actually doesn't matter why.

The fact that we've tried to explain that there is actually some reasoning behind the game mechanics working that way seems to be lost on you. That's fine.

You're making a lot of assumptions about how well parties know each other or that they are a cohesive combat unit. That kind of thing takes intensive and frequent training.

Magic elf game = Enchanted dwarf game. Enjoy your house rules that make sense to you.

No, I'm not trying to get something for nothing. It's easy as hell to get OAs according to the rules, either have a hostility agreement or if you want unarguable RaW, have your caster use charm person or friends on you at some point earlier for unlimited duration hostility. What I'm saying is while OAs on allies without needing any of what I mentioned last sentence technically outside of the rules, it makes so little in-universe sense that it might as well not be.

[McBars]

Well, it doesn't make sense, that's the clearest case of inventing evidence to fit the theory I've ever seen, but I do get what you mean.

Isn't that exactly what you've done by creating your flimflam "We agree to be hostile, therefore buffs as OAs" argument?

[Eslin]

Isn't that exactly what you've done by creating your flimflam "We agree to be hostile, therefore buffs as OAs" argument?

That's not creating evidence, that's actually acting. It's the difference between looking at Dave's corpse and deciding that he was stabbed to death on the grounds Emily uses a knife and you really want it to have been her who killed him despite there being no actual evidence of stabbing and going out and stabbing Dave yourself. In both you want things to be a certain way, in the first you're fabricating evidence out of thin air to make it seem like things are that way, in the second you're actively going out and making it that way yourself.

[Galen]

Am I to understand that in this metaphor, you're the one who stabbed Dave on the account you really wanted him to be stabbed by you? And that, extending the metaphor, you allowed buffing with OAs on the account you really wanted buffing with OAs to be allowed? Makes perfect sense, if that is the case.

[Eslin]

Am I to understand that in this metaphor, you're the one who stabbed Dave on the account you really wanted him to be stabbed by you? And that, extending the metaphor, you allowed buffing with OAs on the account you really wanted buffing with OAs to be allowed? Makes perfect sense, if that is the case.

Well, there are really three aspects to that:

1) Going completely RaW legal. Requires either a prearranged hostility agreement or to cast charm person/friends on your party members so they're persistently hostile according to the rules.

2) How things actually play out in games. The warcaster thing's a debate, but it makes no sense that you're able to attack people going past but suddenly forget how to if they're an ally - it's something that's technically against RaW, but is so silly that it approaches monks don't know how to punch people level of things that are technically rules but get ignored because stupid.

3) What I'm doing about it, which is just removing the 'hostile' part of the warcaster feat because the whole thing is simple as hell to fix. You shouldn't have to have a party member jump through stupid hoops to become technically hostile just to cast on him the same way you can cast on an enemy.

[Galen]

I still don't understand who stabbed Dave.

[Eslin]

I still don't understand who stabbed Dave.

The Dave thing was to illustrate the difference between inventing evidence to fit a theory about how things work and having the characters go out and make things work a certain way.

So in the end it doesn't matter who stabbed Dave, it just matters that people don't invent evidence just because they would like it if Emily had done it.

[Shadow]

Well, there are really three aspects to that:

With regards to 1) If you need a "prearranged hostility agreement" then it is not RAW legal. The Friends trick, while being RAW legal, is also what we call an exploit. Exploits are the kinds of things that get you banned from online RPGs, so you can understand why people have a problem with it at a table.

With regards to 2) It makes sperfect sense in the context of a chaotic battlefield, and that fact has been explained to you adequately. If you choose to disagree with that, fine. But don't say that it makes no sense when it has been established that others disagree.

With regards to 3) What you're doing is making a house rule that ignores logistics and allows an exploit.

[Eslin]

With regards to 1) If you need a "prearranged hostility agreement" then it is not RAW legal. The Friends trick, while being RAW legal, is also what we call an exploit. Exploits are the kinds of things that get you banned from online RPGs, so you can understand why people have a problem with it at a table.

With regards to 2) It makes sperfect sense in the context of a chaotic battlefield, and that fact has been explained to you adequately. If you choose to disagree with that, fine. But don't say that it makes no sense when it has been established that others disagree.

With regards to 3) What you're doing is making a house rule that ignores logistics and allows an exploit.

1) Prearranging a hostility agreement is not RaW legal or illegal, since it's not a game term, just checked and it's not in the glossary. There need to be rules for it to be Rules as Anything. The friends trick is an exploit to get around a problem that has no reason to exist in the first place, hence 3) to obviate its necessity.

2) Still going to say it makes no sense, since it doesn't. There's nothing to indicate you're paying more attention to the location of your enemies than you are to the people necessary to your survival.

3) Not sure where logistics are coming in, and it shouldn't be an exploit in the first case. 5e makes no distinction between hostile, neutral and friendly in any other aspect of spellcasting - you can decide to target specific enemies, exclude targets from the spell's effects and such, but in every case it's your choice, having there be precisely one context in which you can only cast spells in a certain way if there is an enemy runs completely counter to the rest of the edition's design. It's yet another wild surge or gauntlets of ogre power, another instance of everything following one set of design principles barring one exception that goes against them for no reason, so I houserule it in order to remove the need for players to exploit the rules to get around limitations that shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Galen]

So in the end it doesn't matter who stabbed Dave, it just matters that people don't invent evidence just because they would like it if Emily had done it.
Nobody is inventing evidence. People are merely pointing it out to you. To play along with your metaphor, the evidence is about as compelling as:
1. Emily is standing above Dave's body with a bloody knife in her hand.
2. In her other hand, there's a pen, and she's in the process of scribbling a note "sorry I stabbed Dave"
3. There's a security camera footage with Emily stabbing Dave.
4. The DNA on the bloody knife matches Dave.
5. There are 367 eyewitnesses to Emily stabbing Dave.

Further more, no one, least of all me, wants Emily to be the culprit here. I actually kind of like Emily*. But, sorry, the evidence is overwhelming. She's going to jail**.

* And by that, I mean, I actually kind of like this cooky house rule

** And by that, I mean, sorry, it doesn't make sense neither by RAW nor RAI, I cannot accept it.

[Eslin]

Nobody is inventing evidence. People are merely pointing it out to you. To play along with your metaphor, the evidence is about as compelling as:
1. Emily is standing above Dave's body with a bloody knife in her hand.
2. In her other hand, there's a pen, and she's in the process of scribbling a note "sorry I stabbed Dave"
3. There's a security camera footage with Emily stabbing Dave.
4. The DNA on the bloody knife matches Dave.
5. There are 367 eyewitnesses to Emily stabbing Dave.

Further more, no one, least of all me, wants Emily to be the culprit here. I actually kind of like Emily*. But, sorry, the evidence is overwhelming. She's going to jail**.

* And by that, I mean, I actually kind of like this cooky house rule

** And by that, I mean, sorry, it doesn't make sense neither by RAW nor RAI, I cannot accept it.

The invention of evidence was referring to something earlier. Not to the recent posts saying this and that is why the OA makes sense from their perspective. All the stuff recently has been people pointing to how certain aspects of the game work and saying 'I think this means that', that's just interpretation of evidence.

[Safety Sword]

The invention of evidence was referring to something earlier. Not to the recent posts saying this and that is why the OA makes sense from their perspective. All the stuff recently has been people pointing to how certain aspects of the game work and saying 'I think this means that', that's just interpretation of evidence.

You're inventing rubbish evidence when the intent of the rule is quite clear. Everyone knows Emily did it. Emily's defence team seems to be concentrating on the fact that she doesn't know what "murder" means, so clearly it's OK for her to act that way.

As I have stated many times before, it's fine if you want to house rule that casters can use their reaction to buff allies. It's not intended as it increases the utility and power of all of the casting classes with respect to those classes that do not have spell casting ability. But look, this is me saying that's still fine in your game.

The intention of the OA rules is to give characters in melee some way to stop enemies fleeing. To simulate a situation where melee characters actually are afforded an opportunity to stop casters gaining optimal positioning for their short range AoE spells.

Rules lawyering your way into having hostile party members for the duration of encounters so you can twist the intent of the opportunity attack game mechanic makes me want to throw my entire 3.5E book collection at you. The term "pre-arranged hostility agreement" makes me want to pick up all of my book and throw them at you again. You can't just define your own game terms for every word that isn't defined in the rules. Words have meanings and those meanings should be used.

This is going to be my last post in this thread. It's at the point where the arguments are more about the meanings of words in the English language and the application of common sense to the game rules than it is about the opportunity attack mechanics.

[pwykersotz]

This thread has given me more laughs... :smallbiggrin:

I'm inclined, as usual, to disagree with Eslin's reasoning because they come from a completely different perspective than that from which my players and I play.

That said, for some reason I love the opportunity buffing with the feat. It amuses me to ignore the word 'hostile' and have the Barbarian charge away, only for the Cleric to go "Oh shoot, wait, I forgot to *Guidance!*" as he reaches out and tags him at the last second.

As for the latest, calling out 'Hostile' as an irrelevant term seems silly. It's like Tippy ignoring that putting extra dimensional spaces inside each other as 'Dangerous' had no meaning. I fail to see the point of ignoring implications wholecloth like that. As for the 'Friends' spell, I personally interpret (houserule I suppose) that the hostility is dependent on what you got them to do when under the enchantment, and how they felt about you ahead of time. Basically, they know their minds were just screwed with, but the actions past that point depend on the individual character.

[MaxWilson]

As for the latest, calling out 'Hostile' as an irrelevant term seems silly. It's like Tippy ignoring that putting extra dimensional spaces inside each other as 'Dangerous' had no meaning. I fail to see the point of ignoring implications wholecloth like that. As for the 'Friends' spell, I personally interpret (houserule I suppose) that the hostility is dependent on what you got them to do when under the enchantment, and how they felt about you ahead of time. Basically, they know their minds were just screwed with, but the actions past that point depend on the individual character.

At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire, DMG 244 defines, "A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight." Boldface in original. So those who argue that "hostile" isn't a game-defined term are out of luck, unless they want to argue that it's possible to oppose one's self. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Vogonjeltz]

At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire, DMG 244 defines, "A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight." Boldface in original. So those who argue that "hostile" isn't a game-defined term are out of luck, unless they want to argue that it's possible to oppose one's self. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Oh thank goodness that is officially resolved.

[McBars]

Oh thank goodness that is officially resolved.

The national nightmare is over

[MaxWilson]

Oh thank goodness that is officially resolved.

Not that official resolution has ever stopped a GitP argument before...

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

At the risk of pouring fuel on the fire, DMG 244 defines, "A hostile creature opposes the adventurers and their goals but doesn't necessarily attack them on sight." Boldface in original. So those who argue that "hostile" isn't a game-defined term are out of luck, unless they want to argue that it's possible to oppose one's self. Live by the sword, die by the sword.Ah, good, now it's a defined term. Hooray for people getting the DMG early. Personally I prefer having well-defined game terms whenever possible. The DM can always house-rule them differently if he doesn't like them, but when used they help align expectations.

[Eslin]

Live by the sword, die by the sword indeed - if the DM invokes rigid RaW to stop players being able to do something they should logically be able to do, the players can cast Friends so that 'the creature realises that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile to you' and make it work.

Alternatively the DM could just let them cast a spell at melee range as a reaction on allies, because only being able to do so on enemies is stupid and makes no sense.

[silveralen]

Live by the sword, die by the sword indeed - if the DM invokes rigid RaW to stop players being able to do something they should logically be able to do, the players can cast Friends so that 'the creature realises that you used magic to influence its mood and becomes hostile to you' and make it work.

Alternatively the DM could just let them cast a spell at melee range as a reaction on allies, because only being able to do so on enemies is stupid and makes no sense.

Actually it means that, if he casts friends on a party member, after it wears off that player should be actively opposing the casting player at every turn and not cooperating with him in any way.

If the DM is nice, he might allow you to stop being hostile after a period or just let the player decide how his character reacts but if he isn't actively opposing the party/character, he is not hostile to them. So no, by RAW he can't have his cake and eat it to, if he is hostile he has to act it.

At absolute best you can cast buff spells on someone who isn't allowed to help you. You can try to pull "I'm hostile this turn, now I'm not" but you'd get one buff spell fight and have to burn a friends spell ahead of time per target. And after it wears off they can't cooperate with you to get wherever you are going, and he needs to actually try to impede them in someway to be "hostile".

Your loophole got shut down hard, as it should be.

[Eslin]

Actually it means that, if he casts friends on a party member, after it wears off that player should be actively opposing the casting player at every turn and not cooperating with him in any way.

If the DM is nice, he might allow you to stop being hostile after a period or just let the player decide how his character reacts but if he isn't actively opposing the party/character, he is not hostile to them. So no, by RAW he can't have his cake and eat it to, if he is hostile he has to act it.

At absolute best you can cast buff spells on someone who isn't allowed to help you. You can try to pull "I'm hostile this turn, now I'm not" but you'd get one buff spell fight and have to burn a friends spell ahead of time per target. And after it wears off they can't cooperate with you to get wherever you are going, and he needs to actually try to impede them in someway to be "hostile".

Your loophole got shut down hard, as it should be.

It shouldn't be a loophole at all, it should be how the game works. The only reason to use the loophole is to fix the game not making sense.

[silveralen]

It shouldn't be a loophole at all, it should be how the game works. The only reason to use the loophole is to fix the game not making sense.

No, those are called house rules.

Plus, it does make sense within the game. Unless you think it's odd you can administer a health potion, use the medicine skill, or do a help action as a reaction to an ally moving next to you, mundane equivalents of making an attack, so perfectly valid as a reaction of a buff spell is instead of an attack spell.

If you allow this, you should basically give everyone a free off turn action anytime an ally is nearby, for it to "make sense".

[JoeJ]

It shouldn't be a loophole at all, it should be how the game works. The only reason to use the loophole is to fix the game not making sense.

Being able to cast two spells in a round is a very powerful ability. Too powerful for a feat without strict limits, and especially so when War Caster gives other benefits on top of that. If you want to be able to cast spells on allies as a reaction, that should be a different feat.

[Eslin]

Being able to cast two spells in a round is a very powerful ability. Too powerful for a feat without strict limits, and especially so when War Caster gives other benefits on top of that. If you want to be able to cast spells on allies as a reaction, that should be a different feat.

Then warcaster should be changed. There is no reason to be able to cast spells on enemies but not be able to cast those same spells on allies.

[JoeJ]

Then warcaster should be changed. There is no reason to be able to cast spells on enemies but not be able to cast those same spells on allies.

Which spells would you want to cast on both your allies and your enemies?

[Eslin]

Which spells would you want to cast on both your allies and your enemies?

Polymorph.

[JoeJ]

Polymorph.

It would be unbalancing to be able to be able to do that to any ally who runs past. Enemies will usually try to avoid provoking an OA, so your ability to cast as a reaction is limited. If you can use your reaction to buff an ally they will go out of their way to provoke and you'll end up being able to cast two spells per round almost any time you want to.

If you want an in-world explanation, there's nothing in the text, but it's easy enough to come up with one.

[MaxWilson]

Then warcaster should be changed. There is no reason to be able to cast spells on enemies but not be able to cast those same spells on allies.

From a simulationist perspective, I agree. Spellcasting OAs are problematic, and Warcaster should be changed. You could make it a half-feat with +1 Con instead of the OA.

Edit: while we're at it, Warcaster is problematic from a simulationist perspective even when you're just talking about enemies. Why can you OA Hold Person but not Lightning Bolt? Can you OA Vampiric Touch? Why is True Polymorph legal but Hypnotic Pattern is not? It's a huge mess, and eliminating the OA clause from warcaster makes the whole mess just go away.

[Safety Sword]

It shouldn't be a loophole at all, it should be how the game works. The only reason to use the loophole is to fix the game not making sense.

Opinions are a thing. You clearly have them.

House rule away.

I'm not going to try to make sense of your definition of making sense anymore, my head hurts...

[Eslin]

Opinions are a thing. You clearly have them.

House rule away.

I'm not going to try to make sense of your definition of making sense anymore, my head hurts...

My definition of making sense is not have my ability to cast spells change how it acts just because an ally ran past me instead of an enemy.

[silveralen]

My definition of making sense is not have my ability to cast spells change how it acts just because an ally ran past me instead of an enemy.

So why can you use some actions when an enemy runs past, but not others? Why can't you use normal actions when an ally runs past?

[Eslin]

So why can you use some actions when an enemy runs past, but not others? Why can't you use normal actions when an ally runs past?

I have no idea. The only relevant action seems to be attacks of opportunity, and it doesn't make sense that you can swing at an enemy as they go past because they leave a brief gap in their defenses when your allies aren't trying to defend themselves against you at all.

[silveralen]

I have no idea. The only relevant action seems to be attacks of opportunity, and it doesn't make sense that you can swing at an enemy as they go past because they leave a brief gap in their defenses when your allies aren't trying to defend themselves against you at all.

Because the default assumption is you are always focused on the enemies, not your allies, and anytime you you don't have to specifically focus on your allies to perform an action your attentions naps back to the enemy combatants.

A reasonable course of action would be that a player who doesn't focus on the enemies grants advantage,similar to if they were unaware of the enemy (see facing and hidden enemies). This simulates the fact they aren't paying attention to the enemy as thoroughly as a normal combatant.

[Eslin]

Because the default assumption is you are always focused on the enemies, not your allies, and anytime you you don't have to specifically focus on your allies to perform an action your attentions naps back to the enemy combatants.

A reasonable course of action would be that a player who doesn't focus on the enemies grants advantage,similar to if they were unaware of the enemy (see facing and hidden enemies). This simulates the fact they aren't paying attention to the enemy as thoroughly as a normal combatant.

That's a pretty large assumption, and a pretty baseless one for the characters most likely to buff like a cleric or bard who are going to by necessity focus just as much on their allies.

[silveralen]

That's a pretty large assumption, and a pretty baseless one for the characters most likely to buff like a cleric or bard who are going to by necessity focus just as much on their allies.

They don't pay as much attention to the enemies as other classes? That's reasonable, but not paying attention to enemies should have a downside. Not paying attention to enemies obviously makes it easier to get hit, as you aren't focused on defending yourself or watching the actions of the enemy. Thus, if they are truly not apying attention, they could cast reaction spells, but would grant advantage, as I suggested.

That's how it makes sense in game.

[JoeJ]

They don't pay as much attention to the enemies as other classes? That's reasonable, but not paying attention to enemies should have a downside. Not paying attention to enemies obviously makes it easier to get hit, as you aren't focused on defending yourself or watching the actions of the enemy. Thus, if they are truly not apying attention, they could cast reaction spells, but would grant advantage, as I suggested.

That's how it makes sense in game.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that the spell is aware of the situation and has an intent of its own. Perhaps the War Caster feat involves certain mental disciplines that focus and increase the aggressiveness of the caster's magic. The caster can use a spell as an OA against a hostile target because they spell itself has become more eager to attack; the magic practically jumps out of the caster when it has the chance to strike an enemy. To make buffing spells that eager to go you'd need a completely different set of mental exercises (and to create a different feat).

[Giant2005]

An Opportunity Attack is a "Reaction" it isn't a choice. It is a purely instinctive maneuver that occurs during battle.
War Caster allows one to hone their reactions to the point where they can cast a spell as that reaction and not just flail with weapons. Unless you are particularly paranoid about your allies, they won't be triggering your fight or flight reflex like your enemies do (In this case: Fight) so you do not instinctively react to their presence.

[Kornaki]

It is impossible to be hostile for the purposes of getting a free buff. A hostile creature RAW has to oppose the cleric and the cleric's goals. The cleric's goal is to cheese the definition of hostility to get a free buff cast during combat. For another player to oppose that, they must actively seek to not allow the cleric to get an OA. Or attempt a will save against the buff or something.