War Caster Feat + Sentinel Feat??

[violintides]

I have a question. I have both feats listed in the topic above, War Caster & Sentinel, on my Cleric. I am curious to know how they work together, as it seems like they would work together brilliantly. However, I have heard from some people that it may not work the way I am intending it to. Here is the break down.

War Caster has 3 specific "buffs", here they are:

#1a: You have advantage on Con saving throws that you make to maintain your Concentration on a spell when taking damage.
#2a: You can perform somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
#3a: When a hostile creature's movement provokes an Opportunity Attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must only target that creature.

Sentinel has 3 specific "buffs", here they are:

#1b: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
#2b: Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
#3b: When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

QUESTIONS:

(1~) Here's my real big question! #3a & #2b both specifically talk about movement provoking the OA, which I can then use to cast a spell, according to 3a of War Caster. That's how I've been playing it. If that is not correct, then I may want to re-think my use of the two together. Either way, I am really interested to hear what you all have to say.

(2~) Second thought... I think that #1b does not work if I used my OA to cast a spell instead, because a spell cast is not an OA. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Thoughts?

(3~) I realize that #3b specifically says "reaction to make a melee weapon attack" so I cannot use War Caster to cast a spell instead. That's how I've been playing it, but what do you guys think?

[archaeo]

Your interpretation seems like how I'd rule it. I'm curious to see what people say as well.

[Shadow]

The intention, as stated by designers regarding the Polearm Master feat, is that the attack allowed via the feat should be made with a weapon. I would assume that the same is true of the Sentinel feat, as stated in the other thread.

The two were not intended to combine. Polearm Master and Sentinel were intended to be used with weapon attacks.
Warcaster was intended to work on its own, and not in conjunction with any of the others.
Obviously any DM is well within his or her rights to overrule these rulings, but they have specifically stated that PM and WC weren't intended to be combined, so it's a safe assumption that the same applies to Sentinel, especially considering the fact that they specify a melee weapon attack in one of the clauses.

[Dalebert]

I would say

1) Yes, movement is definitely provoking an OA and when that happens, you can cast a spell as a reaction.
2) No, because WC specifically says "rather than making an opportunity attack" so you're not making an OA. You're getting something else instead which does not trigger the 0 movement ability.
3) No, for exactly the reason you gave.

[Invader]

The intention, as stated by designers regarding the Polearm Master feat, is that the attack allowed via the feat should be made with a weapon. I would assume that the same is true of the Sentinel feat, as stated in the other thread.

The two were not intended to combine. Polearm Master and Sentinel were intended to be used with weapon attacks.
Warcaster was intended to work on its own, and not in conjunction with any of the others.
Obviously any DM is well within his or her rights to overrule these rulings, but they have specifically stated that PM and WC weren't intended to be combined, so it's a safe assumption that the same applies to Sentinel, especially considering the fact that they specify a melee weapon attack in one of the clauses.

RAW they work fine together. RAI isn't usually a good basis for giving advice on how the rules work.

[archaeo]

RAW they work fine together. RAI isn't usually a good basis for giving advice on how the rules work.

I thought "RAI" was "Rules As Interpreted," not "Rules As Intended."

In any case, I'm not sure why it's intended that none of these feats work together; frankly, if I'm playing martial character and I give up several ASI to take multiple feats, I want them to work together. But I think you're stretching, Shadow. I can see why War Caster wouldn't work with Polearm Master -- the expanded reach is fluffed as being extra good with a long weapon, which allows you to control more space, not just some kind of aura that you now exude -- but there doesn't seem to be any reason Sentinel wouldn't work with War Caster the way violintides says.

[Jlooney]

I think if you're willing to dump two feats and be in melee as a caster there shouldn't be a problem as long as the spell can also fits the criteria. I would rule yes but the spell would have to be a touch spell.

[violintides]

I think if you're willing to dump two feats and be in melee as a caster there shouldn't be a problem as long as the spell can also fits the criteria. I would rule yes but the spell would have to be a touch spell.

Why would it have to be a touch spell?
I have Inflict Wounds, but why can't I use Guiding Bolt?

[Shadow]

But I think you're stretching, Shadow.

I don't think it's stretching at all.
What is Sentinel?
It's a tank feat designed to force targets to stick to you and not attack others or move away to do so.
What are its benefits? Let's reorder them. No changes, simple reordering with an annotation.

-When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.
(this one protects your allies forcing enemies to attack you or take an OA, it also specifies melee weapon attack)

-Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
(this one keeps enemies from moving away from you, even in circumstances where they would otherwise be able to move away)

-When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.

It all flows together behind a single ideal. That ideal is that you are using your weapon to keep enemies nearby, and punishing them if they move away or attack anyone else.
Normal OAs, sure, cast a spell.
Sentinel OAs, nope, hit them with a big stick, just like Polearm Master.
I firmly believe that this is a case of the designers not feeling the need to repeat themselves in a single entry, kind of like a warlock not being able to use a bow as their pact weapon because the entry specifically states that it must be a melee weapon (even though other parts of the entry do not state it, it has been stated, so no need to repeat it).

[Invader]

Except sentinel doesnt say anything about using a weapon in regards to disengage so your arguing your opinion over RAW.

It doesn't follow that if they wanted the weapon rule to apply to all aspects they'd add it after the disengage rule.

[Shadow]

Except sentinel doesnt say anything about using a weapon in regards to disengage so your arguing your opinion over RAW.

It doesn't follow that if they wanted the weapon rule to apply to all aspects they'd add it after the disengage rule.
Yes, it is absolutely my opinion, as I very clearly stated.
It also doesn't follow that they didn't say anything about requiring a weapon attack in the Polearm Master feat, and yet that was exactly the intention, as stated by the designers.
It's not a stretch at all to assume that they did something similar with another feat considering they'd already done it at least once that we know of, and calling it a stretch is exhagerrating the issue quite a bit in my mind.

[The Dolman]

RAI, it doesn't entirely follow that an arcane blast would have the same stopping power as a big stick. RAW, I completely agree with all three points. I generally like allowing my players some flexibility, and if a player wants to invest heavily in being able to be a sticky melee range caster, i see no balance issues in allowing that.

[Eslin]

RaW it works fine, RaI if a caster wants to blow two feats doing this you might as well let them.

[violintides]

RaW it works fine, RaI if a caster wants to blow two feats doing this you might as well let them.

I think this is kind of off-topic of my OP, but... Clerics are considered "casters"? I know they CAN cast spells, but they aren't the typical stand-in-the-back-and-cast types like Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, etc.,. Clerics are front liners, aren't they? I built my Cleric to be a tank that CAN heal with the War Caster + Sentinel feat. She is a Human, and it is homebrew with a few special creation rules, so that's how I got 2 feats before even hitting 10. Either way, I am curious as to why people continuously think of her as a "Caster" rather than a Tank who just CAN cast? I guess it's just me, but I can't imagine a single Cleric without War Caster since we are tanks in addition to being Casters.

Also, I was wondering why someone said I HAVE to pick a TOUCH spell for the War Caster OP attack? Why would I HAVE to pick that? I usually pick Guiding Bolt, since it deals a fair amount of damage and is a single-target spell as the War Caster feat's reaction requires.

[Maxilian]

I have a question. I have both feats listed in the topic above, War Caster & Sentinel, on my Cleric. I am curious to know how they work together, as it seems like they would work together brilliantly. However, I have heard from some people that it may not work the way I am intending it to. Here is the break down.

War Caster has 3 specific "buffs", here they are:

#1a: You have advantage on Con saving throws that you make to maintain your Concentration on a spell when taking damage.
#2a: You can perform somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
#3a: When a hostile creature's movement provokes an Opportunity Attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must only target that creature.

Sentinel has 3 specific "buffs", here they are:

#1b: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
#2b: Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
#3b: When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

QUESTIONS:

(1~) Here's my real big question! #3a & #2b both specifically talk about movement provoking the OA, which I can then use to cast a spell, according to 3a of War Caster. That's how I've been playing it. If that is not correct, then I may want to re-think my use of the two together. Either way, I am really interested to hear what you all have to say.

(2~) Second thought... I think that #1b does not work if I used my OA to cast a spell instead, because a spell cast is not an OA. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Thoughts?

(3~) I realize that #3b specifically says "reaction to make a melee weapon attack" so I cannot use War Caster to cast a spell instead. That's how I've been playing it, but what do you guys think?

I totally agree with you and all those points...

[Marcelinari]

I don't think anything stops you from using Guiding Touch for your OA, but it would be made at disadvantage. It's a ranged attack directed at a target within 5ft, after all.

[violintides]

I don't think anything stops you from using Guiding Touch for your OA, but it would be made at disadvantage. It's a ranged attack directed at a target within 5ft, after all.
Funny thing is that he's never made me do that. I feel like he is very experienced as a DM with Pathfinder and previous iterations, but perhaps he is just not experienced at all with 5e. My friends have also pointed out that you cannot have Concentration going for multiple spells at once, but he's never told me I can't have Bless and Shield of Faith up at the same time, so I always have, and then when I hit the appropriate level, I went for Spirit Guardians. I've never had him tell me "Concentration can only be on one spell at a time" so I assume that he just house rules you can concentrate as much as you want.

People say I shouldn't rock the boat on this one issue because he lets me have the others, but why should I give up on one thing he lets me have when this is one that he is simply ruling inappropriately rather than saying there is a reason they know to attack me instead of fleeing/attack my enemies/etc.

[Dalebert]

Yes, it is absolutely my opinion, as I very clearly stated.
It also doesn't follow that they didn't say anything about requiring a weapon attack in the Polearm Master feat, and yet that was exactly the intention, as stated by the designers.
It's not a stretch at all to assume that they did something similar with another feat considering they'd already done it at least once that we know of, and calling it a stretch is exhagerrating the issue quite a bit in my mind.

The essentially do say it though. The two are not analogous.

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack
from you when they enter your reach."

It's obvious that they mean with the long weapon. It does not follow that being really good with a polearm, because it has reach, would provide you an OA as an enemy approaches with anything but that specific reach weapon that's in your hands. I wouldn't let this trigger Warcaster despite it arguably working by RAW.

Yes, OAs are assumed to be with a melee weapon. That's the general case with or without Sentinel, but Warcaster gives you a special exception and lets you cast a spell in place of the opportunity attack that would normally have to be a melee weapon attack. Sentinel effectively nullifies the disengage action. That's the core of what's happening. The enemy is still provoking an OA with movement, i.e. the clearly specified trigger for Warcaster.

[Shadow]

The essentially do say it though. The two are not analogous.

"While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack
from you when they enter your reach."

It's obvious that they mean with the long weapon. It does not follow that being really good with a polearm, because it has reach, would provide you an OA as an enemy approaches with anything but that specific reach weapon that's in your hands. I wouldn't let this trigger Warcaster despite it arguably working by RAW.

Yes, OAs are assumed to be with a melee weapon. That's the general case with or without Sentinel, but Warcaster gives you a special exception and lets you cast a spell in place of the opportunity attack that would normally have to be a melee weapon attack. Sentinel effectively nullifies the disengage action. That's the core of what's happening. The enemy is still provoking an OA with movement, i.e. the clearly specified trigger for Warcaster.

Emphasis mine.
Note that PM doesn't state that the OA has to be taken with the weapon, only that you have to be holding the weapon.
So by your own logic, Polearm Master's OA can also be done via Warcaster.
Except that it can't.

[Dalebert]

Emphasis mine.
Note that PM doesn't state that the OA has to be taken with the weapon, only that you have to be holding the weapon.
So by your own logic, Polearm Master's OA can also be done via Warcaster.
Except that it can't.

By RAW, you absolutely can make the OA by any means available to you via Polearm Master, but that's exploiting a loophole. It's rule-lawyering and it doesn't make sense so I wouldn't allow it. It's not RAI. I'm agreeing with you on that point.

My only disagreement is about whether the same logic follows for Sentinel. By RAW, it definitely works, and I'm suggesting that by RAI, it should also work.

[Shadow]

My only disagreement is about whether the same logic follows for Sentinel. By RAW, it definitely works, and I'm suggesting that by RAI, it should also work.

But should it?
Think about the feat. Think about what it does. Ignoring the reaction attack (not listed as an OA), the feat grants an OA upon any enemy movement away, and stops that movement.
Attacking with a weapon and forcing an enemy to stop and defend himself makes sense.
Spraying a cloud of poisonous gas makes the enemy stop.... why exactly?
edit: and if you aren't going to allow the OA spell to stop movement, then why would the tank who took Sentinel to be a better tank want to cast a spell instead in the first place? If he does he's letting them get away, and therefore failing at his tanking.
Either it doesn't make sense, or it's counterproductive.

You claim that with PM it's quite clear hat the attack was intended to be taken with the weapon.
I claim that the same is true for Sentinel.

[archaeo]

edit: and if you aren't going to allow the OA spell to stop movement, then why would the tank who took Sentinel to be a better tank want to cast a spell instead in the first place? If he does he's letting them get away, and therefore failing at his tanking.
Either it doesn't make sense, or it's counterproductive.

Presumably, because a spell might be a better choice than an attack. It's well within the realm of possibility. I'm fine with not letting the OA spell stop movement -- that seems like RAW -- but allowing them the use of the spell hardly seems so counterproductive as to be useless.

Also, as an aside, Shadow, it would be so much easier to read your comments if you used paragraphs and full line breaks between them. Or even just using full line breaks instead of just breaking to a new line, as I've done in this comment.

[Dalebert]

Just because someone is using an ability in a manner that's not how it was intended to be used doesn't (shouldn't?) nullify the ability. No, I would not allow the spell to stop their movement because the option to cast a spell is replacing the OA and the OA is needed to send their movement to zero. People often combine abilities in ways that were unintended but still useful. In general, that should be fine unless it results in some ridiculous exploit. Maybe the character is expecting the spell to drop the enemy which is better than just stopping its movement. Maybe the tactic will be a total failure. The character is just being creative with the abilities that he paid a feat tax for.

The problem with PM is not that they're using it in a manner that's unintended. They're trying to use it in a way that should not even be feasible. You're getting an attack on someone as they approach because you have a reach weapon poised to strike. It makes no sense that that can be replaced by casting a spell or using another weapon (which they feel they covered by saying you must be wielding a polearm(ish) weapon) or whatever else based on the source of the OA.

There's one ability of Sentinel that just happens to synergize well with Warcaster and can be used in a different way if desired. You're saying they expect it to be with a melee weapon, sure, but that's specifically what Warcaster (that part of it) is for--to allow you to cast a spell in place of a melee weapon OA based on a creature exiting your area of control, i.e. the only thing that normally triggers an OA.

Sentinel: You're super vigilant and hyper-alert to enemies trying to leave your area of control and therefore able to override the disengage action and still get the OA you would normally get with whatever weapon you're wielding.

Warcaster: When you would normally get a melee weapon OA with whatever weapon you're wielding from someone leaving your area of control, you can instead reflexively cast a spell really fast.

You're basically arguing for overruling the RAW based on a common sense understanding of the abilities and I'm agreeing with you for one case but not the other.

[Shadow]

Once again:

You claim that with PM it's quite clear that the attack was intended to be taken with the weapon.
I claim that the same is true for Sentinel.

[Dalebert]

With PM, the source of the opportunity attack IS the weapon. It's a long weapon poised to strike as someone approaches.

With Sentinel, the source of the opportunity attack is your vigilance. The particular weapon is no more relevant than any other OA from someone leaving your reach, i.e. the standard trigger for the WC spell-replacement ability.

[Myzz]

The problem with PM is not that they're using it in a manner that's unintended. They're trying to use it in a way that should not even be feasible. You're getting an attack on someone as they approach because you have a reach weapon poised to strike. It makes no sense that that can be replaced by casting a spell or using another weapon (which they feel they covered by saying you must be wielding a polearm(ish) weapon) or whatever else based on the source of the OA.

So your saying someone can not be poised to strike except with a weapon? specifically a weapon that's longer than most? I would understand that more if the verbage was set against a charge... but alas it is not. The real travesty imo, is that only users of reach weapons, specifically glaive, halberd, pike or quarterstaff get this "poised to strike option.

personally I do not like the feat at all common sense wise. Guy A is directly in front of you, Guy B approaches directly behind guy A and now provokes an AoO at full value (or -2 due to half cover)? His buddy you were just fighting lets you push your Glaive through his square and attack, and doesnt take the Opportunity to attack you? Might make sense if you were in a shield wall, but thats not stated either...

Or a second scenario where you are fighting guy A directly in front of you, and guy C comes up behind you and you get to spin around and extend your sole weapon 10ft out away from you and guy A does nothing while your extended thusly?

[Dalebert]

Myzz, your points are well taken. My first thought is you're getting fairly well off topic and might want to start another thread to pick apart Polearm Master. My second thought is you're getting into details of realism and if you start pulling that thread, 5e will be a sweater that will start unraveling rather quickly. It was designed with theater of the mind, simplicity, and all that fuzz, at the cost of a certain amount of realism.

There's a player in my game that pulls that thread a lot and we all have to keep discouraging him. His thoughts are not irrational. It's just the game has to take more into account than just realism. In particular, it has to account for balance and fun and the latter often calls for some simplification so as not to bog down the game.

[archaeo]

Dalebert sort of summed it up nicely there, Shadow. I'm not sure why you're throwing up so much resistance to what seems like a RAW/RAI slam dunk, honestly.

[Callin]

Looking through the combat section I dont see anything about needing to have a weapon in hand to "threaten" any area around you. So you get AoO even if you have nothing in hand. Yes it says that AoO must be a melee attack. Warcaster trumps that and Sentinel trumps standard AoO trigger rules. I say they work together just fine, and would honestly let the spell stop movement but I do agree that since the spell replaces the standard AoO that the section of Sentinel does not trigger. So either way should be fine and not really all the Overpowered. Its a good combo and one that I am currently using on my Cleric as well.

[RedMage125]

QUESTIONS:

(1~) Here's my real big question! #3a & #2b both specifically talk about movement provoking the OA, which I can then use to cast a spell, according to 3a of War Caster. That's how I've been playing it. If that is not correct, then I may want to re-think my use of the two together. Either way, I am really interested to hear what you all have to say.

(2~) Second thought... I think that #1b does not work if I used my OA to cast a spell instead, because a spell cast is not an OA. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Thoughts?

(3~) I realize that #3b specifically says "reaction to make a melee weapon attack" so I cannot use War Caster to cast a spell instead. That's how I've been playing it, but what do you guys think?

1~ TECHNICALLY, by RAW you have the right of it, although it is not in keeping with the intent of those feats. Because they do not specify "weapon attacks", you may, if you have both feats, use them together in that way. Thus, you could cast Hold Person on a creature as it enters your reach but before it attacks, thus preventing it from ever attacking.

2~ Correct, #1b specifies an "Attack of Opportunity", whereas War Caster allows you to use a reaction to do something else instead of an Attack of Opportunity.

3~ Again, correct. It is using a Reaction, but not "making an Attack of Opportunity which was provoked by movement".

I agree with Shadow as far as the intent of the rules, but from a strict reading of the Rules as Written, you are correct in that the combination of these two feats allows you to cast a spell at a target who moves into your reach.

[violintides]

1~ TECHNICALLY, by RAW you have the right of it, although it is not in keeping with the intent of those feats. Because they do not specify "weapon attacks", you may, if you have both feats, use them together in that way. Thus, you could cast Hold Person on a creature as it enters your reach but before it attacks, thus preventing it from ever attacking.

2~ Correct, #1b specifies an "Attack of Opportunity", whereas War Caster allows you to use a reaction to do something else instead of an Attack of Opportunity.

3~ Again, correct. It is using a Reaction, but not "making an Attack of Opportunity which was provoked by movement".

I agree with Shadow as far as the intent of the rules, but from a strict reading of the Rules as Written, you are correct in that the combination of these two feats allows you to cast a spell at a target who moves into your reach.

Don't you mean "out of my reach" rather than "into my reach"? Why would I get an OA just from someone walking into my reach? I'm not a Polearm Master....or whatever.

[RedMage125]

Yes...yes I did.

[holygroundj]

This is the first question my group dealt with. The problem with the RaW is that the triggering events are not clearly spelled out enough in the natural language.

For example: PM+Sentinel: When does the OA trigger in a 5ft square combat grid when you are wielding a weapon with reach? The reason this is important is because, unlike any other OAs, this one is about entering, and not leaving. Gloss over the fact that there's actually been RaW arguments about your PM OA not using the reach property at all, if you hit with your OA from PM, the creature has to stop. So does it stop 2 squares from you, seeing as that's your reach, or does it stop 3 squares away, due to the fact that the trigger for the OA was an attempt to enter your reach and if you hit with the OA, it immediately has 0 speed?

We decided it was 10 feet because the trigger completes before the reaction occurs.

basically, our RaI of the rules of PM+Warcaster: PM triggers an OA. Warcaster then triggers because you now have an OA. Before using the OA, Warcaster converts your OA to a single target spell. So even though the trigger of PM was that you had to be weilding a weapon, the OA attack is being replaced by Warcaster.

So if you have PM+Sentinel: your OA stops the guy. But our interpretation breaks warcaster+sentinel because you are not making an OA; you are replacing your OA with a specific attack.

[Sjappo]

Funny thing is that he's never made me do that. I feel like he is very experienced as a DM with Pathfinder and previous iterations, but perhaps he is just not experienced at all with 5e. My friends have also pointed out that you cannot have Concentration going for multiple spells at once, but he's never told me I can't have Bless and Shield of Faith up at the same time, so I always have, and then when I hit the appropriate level, I went for Spirit Guardians. I've never had him tell me "Concentration can only be on one spell at a time" so I assume that he just house rules you can concentrate as much as you want.

People say I shouldn't rock the boat on this one issue because he lets me have the others, but why should I give up on one thing he lets me have when this is one that he is simply ruling inappropriately rather than saying there is a reason they know to attack me instead of fleeing/attack my enemies/etc.
So, basically you're cheating. You know your DM doesn't know the rules quite that well. Still you willfully break a rule. I, as a DM, would be very annoyed if I found out. Remember, it's not the DM's job to check if you're cheating. It's everyone's job to follow the rules as you know them.

You wouldn't be rocking the boat, you would be helping your DM running your game. It is my opinion that you should know your character, and you should play it in a rules legal way. If the rules are ambiguous or if you wonder if your DM has the same interpretation as you, it is your job to open the discussion. The DM's job is hard enough as it is, don't make it harder.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding condescending, but I really hate it if player think that as a DM the entire game is your responsibility. Make of this what you will.

[Dalebert]

I'm sorry if I'm sounding condescending, but I really hate it if player think that as a DM the entire game is your responsibility. Make of this what you will.

I agree. I recall losing my patience once and snapping at a player who was repeatedly asking me about xp and treasure he had from some previous event, expecting me to drop everything and go look it up for him. I felt ridiculous having to explain to him that I have an ENTIRE WORLD to keep up with and he just has his one character so please just write things down when I tell you (We had a website where all of that was logged and that sent notifications out to all players when I updated it). The players should be always cognizant of trying to make things easier for the DM who already has to do so much. This means running your own sheet correctly. It means waiting for the right time to ask questions, like NOT when the DM is in the middle of calculating something in combat, etc.

[violintides]

So, basically you're cheating. You know your DM doesn't know the rules quite that well. Still you willfully break a rule. I, as a DM, would be very annoyed if I found out. Remember, it's not the DM's job to check if you're cheating. It's everyone's job to follow the rules as you know them.

You wouldn't be rocking the boat, you would be helping your DM running your game. It is my opinion that you should know your character, and you should play it in a rules legal way. If the rules are ambiguous or if you wonder if your DM has the same interpretation as you, it is your job to open the discussion. The DM's job is hard enough as it is, don't make it harder.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding condescending, but I really hate it if player think that as a DM the entire game is your responsibility. Make of this what you will.
I am a DM in other games, so I am not stupid enough as to know that a DM's job is to know all the rules all the time. That being said, I never knew this was a rule until it was brought up to me when I was discussing this same feat with another 5e DM of whom I consider a friend. He pointed it out to me in the Spellcasting section of the 5ePHB and I realized I was playing wrong.

I've not been able to bring that up to my DM yet because the last time we tried to play, it got cancelled. So, I was inadvertantly breaking the rules, as I stated my friends pointed this out to me later when I asked why a Cleric in my other 5e group can't have multiple blessings up at the same time.

I do not appreciate being called a cheater, especially when it's a new system and I clearly stated I was told by others I shouldn't rock the boat, I never said "I'm content with breaking the rules!" ... by my saying people have told me not to rock the boat then does that not express to you that I wanted to and was dissuaded by others?

...Being called a cheater by another gamer in a D&D community when I am discussing rules is f@#king enraging me.

[Sjappo]

...Being called a cheater by another gamer in a D&D community when I am discussing rules is f@#king enraging me.
Seems I jumped the gun on you. For that I apologize. Your post made it seem that the situation had existed for some time. I've had my share of players who expected me to do and know and notice everything. And who were proud when they managed to sneak something by me for some time. So your story struck a nerve with me.

Still, I was wrong to judge. Again my apologies.

Btw, I hope you cure your fellow player(s) from their "let sleeping dogs lie" attitude.

[tcrudisi]

I have a question. I have both feats listed in the topic above, War Caster & Sentinel, on my Cleric. I am curious to know how they work together, as it seems like they would work together brilliantly. However, I have heard from some people that it may not work the way I am intending it to. Here is the break down.

War Caster has 3 specific "buffs", here they are:

#1a: You have advantage on Con saving throws that you make to maintain your Concentration on a spell when taking damage.
#2a: You can perform somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
#3a: When a hostile creature's movement provokes an Opportunity Attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must only target that creature.

Sentinel has 3 specific "buffs", here they are:

#1b: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn.
#2b: Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
#3b: When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.

QUESTIONS:

(1~) Here's my real big question! #3a & #2b both specifically talk about movement provoking the OA, which I can then use to cast a spell, according to 3a of War Caster. That's how I've been playing it. If that is not correct, then I may want to re-think my use of the two together. Either way, I am really interested to hear what you all have to say.

(2~) Second thought... I think that #1b does not work if I used my OA to cast a spell instead, because a spell cast is not an OA. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Thoughts?

(3~) I realize that #3b specifically says "reaction to make a melee weapon attack" so I cannot use War Caster to cast a spell instead. That's how I've been playing it, but what do you guys think?

Wait - before I get started, is this the Violintides that plays werewolf on bgg?

I'm going to go through my interpretation of the rules outlined above. I'm trying to follow as strict of RAW as possible.

Sentinel makes it so that creatures provoke OA's even if they use the disengage action. Legit.
Warcaster makes it so that you can cast a spell, RATHER THAN MAKING AN OPPORTUNITY ATTACK.
Sentinel then says, when you hit a creature WITH AN OPPORTUNITY ATTACK, their speed becomes 0.

So how I'd rule it?

You can use a spell instead of a weapon attack, but it does NOT stop their movement.

[violintides]

wait - before i get started, is this the violintides that plays werewolf on bgg?

I'm going to go through my interpretation of the rules outlined above. I'm trying to follow as strict of raw as possible.

Sentinel makes it so that creatures provoke oa's even if they use the disengage action. Legit.
Warcaster makes it so that you can cast a spell, rather than making an opportunity attack.
Sentinel then says, when you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, their speed becomes 0.

So how i'd rule it?

You can use a spell instead of a weapon attack, but it does not stop their movement.
every violintides on the internet is meeeee
tttiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmm i love you!!!

[Giddonihah]

.
Sentinel makes it so that creatures provoke OA's even if they use the disengage action. Legit.
Warcaster makes it so that you can cast a spell, RATHER THAN MAKING AN OPPORTUNITY ATTACK.
Sentinel then says, when you hit a creature WITH AN OPPORTUNITY ATTACK, their speed becomes 0.

Yah I think I'd rule it the same way because of those lines. Its a replacement effect, like replacing an attack with a shove, it is no longer an Opportunity attack but a spellcasting.

[kalikorz]

Relevant Sage Compendium Stuff.


Can you use a melee spell attack to make an opportunity attack? You can’t if the spell attack is created by casting a spell. When a creature triggers an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against it. The opportunity attack doesn’t suddenly give you the ability to cast a spell, such as shocking grasp.
Each spell has a casting time. A game feature, such as an opportunity attack, doesn’t let you bypass that casting time, unless the feature says otherwise. The War Caster feat is an example of a feature that does let you bypass a 1-action casting time to cast a spell in place of an opportunity attack.
A few monsters can make opportunity attacks with melee spell attacks. Here’s how: certain monsters—including the banshee, lich, and specter—have a melee spell attack that isn’t delivered by a spell. For example, the banshee’s Corrupting Touch action is a melee spell attack but no spell is cast to make it. The banshee can, therefore, make opportunity attacks with Corrupting Touch.

When designing a feat with a narrow use, we consider adding at least one element that can benefit a character more broadly—a bit of mastery that your character brings from one situation to another. The second benefit of Crossbow Expert is such an element, as is the first benefit of Great Weapon Master.

Relevant Latest Errata

Reach (p. 147). This property also
determines your reach for opportunity attacks
with a reach weapon.


Sentinel (p. 169). Ignore “within 5 feet
of you” in the second benefit.

Relevant Twitter Response from the Designer

Jeremy Crawford
‏@JeremyECrawford
@henryhiggins47 The intent is that any OA triggered because you're wielding a polearm is then made with that polearm. @

You can use Sentinel to get warcasted spells but not with a reach weapon only with natural reach.

[Specter]

2015? Man, good times.

[BillyBobShorton]

Why should 1 feat trump another? If AoO provokes a spell, then so be it.

You forfeited 2 ASI's to have this ability, so yes, you should be able to. Otherwise, just take warcaster and tell the DM (if he wants to nerf it) to f off.

I feel the whole point of feats vs ASI is that the aswesomeness from ASI's should be at least equalled. 1 imrpves your overall stats whilw the other road allows you to build a PC with unique abilities. Anyone reading too hard into it to say "nope" is making your imagined build less effective, ie. making the game less fun, ie. ignoring the goal of DMing=make it fun.