Booming Blade as an Attack of Opportunity with a Polearm

[DracoKnight]

Everything in this post is by RAW, and I decided to write up this build, to help clarify for everyone asking if you can use it with a polearm by RAW.

For our class, let's go Fighter, because it gives us the most ASIs/Feats.

Now, with the Standard Array, let's assign our stats:

STR 15
DEX 10
CON 14
INT 13
WIS 12
CHA 8

And, let's play a Variant Human, taking the Polearm Master feat. Our stats will now be:

STR 16
DEX 10
CON 14
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 8

At 3rd level, we're going to become an Eldritch Knight, grabbing booming blade as one of our cantrips.
At 4th level, grab Spell Sniper, so that you can now attack using your Polearm. (Spell sniper doubles the range of spells that require an attack roll)
At 6th level, grab War Caster. Now you can use your polearm for an opportunity attack, and cast booming blade as an AoO at a range of 10 feet.

Debate resolved.

[Quintessence]

But does booming blade really work with spell sniper..?

[MeeposFire]

But does booming blade really work with spell sniper..?

Oddly enough it does have a range of 5 feet (not your weapons reach).

[DracoKnight]

But does booming blade really work with spell sniper..?

Yes.


PHB, page 170

Spell Sniper
Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell

You have learned techniques to enhance your attacks with certain kinds of spells, gaining the following benefits:

- When you cast a spell that requires you to make an attack roll, the spells range is doubled.
- Your ranged spell attack ignore half cover and three-covers quarter.
- You learn one cantrip from the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. Your spellcasting ability for this cantrip depends on the spell list you chose from: Charisma for bard, sorcerer, or warlock; Wisdom for cleric or druid; or Intelligence for wizard.

If you look at the first benefit of the feat, it doubles the range of spells that require an attack roll - it doesn't specify that you have to make a spell attack roll. Ergo, it is applicable to booming blade.

[DracoKnight]

Oddly enough it does have a range of 5 feet (not your weapons reach).

Which is doubled to 10 feet by Spell Sniper, so you can now use it with a Polearm.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Last I heard, Warcaster and Polearm Master doesn't work together.

[GandalfTheWhite]

*proceeds to roll up an Eldritch Knight*

Suck my big fat d- ...PR, you lousy monsters!

Seriously though, this is a pretty nice boost to the EK, and viable from level 6 as human (a reason to play human) or 8 as any other race :smallbiggrin:

[DracoKnight]

Last I heard, Warcaster and Polearm Master doesn't work together.

How do they not?

Also, is this an official ruling? If so, do you have a link?

[MeeposFire]

Last I heard, Warcaster and Polearm Master doesn't work together.

The ruling you are thinking of is older than booming blade. IN that ruling the designer specifically said the intention is that you can only use the polearm master benefit if you use one of the feats special weapons. At the time no spell used weapons but booming blade does.

Essentially the given reason about not allowing it to work does not apply if you use booming blade or green flame blade since they use the weapon in the attack.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

How do they not?

Also, is this an official ruling? If so, do you have a link?

Mike or Jeremy said in one of their tweets back when 5e first came out that the two didn't work together (or wasn't intended to).

For AL, it won't work, for home games just ask your DM.

Google and sage advice should help you find it.


The ruling you are thinking of is older than booming blade. IN that ruling the designer specifically said the intention is that you can only use the polearm master benefit if you use one of the feats special weapons. At the time no spell used weapons but booming blade does.

Essentially the given reason about not allowing it to work does not apply if you use booming blade or green flame blade since they use the weapon in the attack.


It doesn't matter what the spell is using. The basics is still the same.

Warcaster let's you cast a spell and ON let's you use a weapon.

Going by precedent, Warcaster and PM still doesn't work together.

[joaber]

I think is waaay to much investment for just a plus damage in one reaction.

[Quintessence]

I think is waaay to much investment for just a plus damage in one reaction.

But what about with tunnel fighting style?

[GandalfTheWhite]

Mike or Jeremy said in one of their tweets back when 5e first came out that the two didn't work together (or wasn't intended to).

For AL, it won't work, for home games just ask your DM.

Google and sage advice should help you find it.




It doesn't matter what the spell is using. The basics is still the same.

Warcaster let's you cast a spell and ON let's you use a weapon.

Going by precedent, Warcaster and PM still doesn't work together.

That ruling is from... *looks it up* 2014. Before booming blade was created for 5e. They might have a different ruling now. And for a three feat investment, I don't think that many DMs would say no for a very niche thing :smalltongue:

[DracoKnight]

But what about with tunnel fighting style?

I'm listing how to do it by RAW, and many people don't consider the UA articles to be RAW, because they're not official rules for the AL.

But, if you did have the Tunnel Fighter fighting style, you could indeed really abuse this combination.

[Zalabim]

Even if you add Tunnel Fighting style, you're using a Reaction to cast a spell according to Warcaster, not making an OA. It would not allow more than one booming blade.

[Sir cryosin]

Just go AT with a whip. You will be doing more damage. And take the lucky feat.

[Submortimer]

I am inclined to agree with this. I know what the Sage's have said, but that was mostly in regards to Eldritch Blast and Repelling Blast shenanigans. Besides, if you go by strict RAW (even post errata), the PAM and WC combo still works:

PAM: "while you are wielding a (Polearm), Other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach"

WC: "When a Hostile Creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell instead of making an opportunity attack."

Regardless of the intent, the wording supports it.

[joaber]

I would alow the combo too, because with boombing blade, you're using the polearm to make the attack, way different to cast an eldritch blast.

But look, you need warcaster AND spell sniper to that work. You could get sentinel and GWM, or just one and +2 strenght, or +4 of strenght.

[DracoKnight]

I would alow the combo too, because with boombing blade, you're using the polearm to make the attack, way different to cast an eldritch blast.

But look, you need warcaster AND spell sniper to that work. You could get sentinel and GWM, or just one and +2 strenght, or +4 of strenght.

Oh, yeah, you can bump your stats. And in most cases that is the better option, as this is a very niche action. However, I was surprised by how many people was saying that it was impossible, so I decided to show that by RAW (and a 3-feat investment) is IS actually possible. Now, in a game where most classes have 5 ASIs, this isn't the greatest idea if you're using Standard Array :smalltongue:

[Submortimer]

Oh, yeah, you can bump your stats. And in most cases that is the better option, as this is a very niche action. However, I was surprised by how many people was saying that it was impossible, so I decided to show that by RAW (and a 3-feat investment) is IS actually possible. Now, in a game where most classes have 5 ASIs, this isn't the greatest idea if you're using Standard Array :smalltongue:

Well, to be fair, the only players that would likely use this combo are Variant Human EK's. (Or, you know, that's probably the only viable option).

I will say that this is a build where I would NOT take sentinel: if I'm using booming blade, I want to let them keep their speed. Still though, PAM, WC, and SS. At an EK, you could have it running by level 6, but that's still pretty tight.

[Nicodiemus]

Since BB and GFB are both spell casting actions and not attack actions, I don't think you can use either as an AoO unless you have warcasting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[georgie_leech]

Since BB and GFB are both spell casting actions and not attack actions, I don't think you can use either as an AoO unless you have warcasting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong, but the combo and OP specify grabbing Warcaster, so...

[Nicodiemus]

Then that's actually really nasty. Especially with GFB if you're fighting a group you get the carryover damage to another target.

[Theodoxus]

If you had GWM, PAM, WC and GFB, fighting a mob, and you killed one, would the GWM trigger to grant the bonus attack? I'd say probably, if it was the one you hit with the attack and no if it was a GFB splash... though I'm not really sure...

[DracoKnight]

Confirmed that my proposed combo does work by RAW.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66RprYE6_HHSjJFaGd4cjg5RTg/view?usp=sharing

[RickAllison]

Confirmed that my proposed combo does work by RAW.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66RprYE6_HHSjJFaGd4cjg5RTg/view?usp=sharing

It looks like your image is broken. Were you trying to set a Hyperlink?

[DracoKnight]

It looks like your image is broken. Were you trying to set a Hyperlink?

I was just trying to embed it. Oh well. I uploaded the image to Google Drive and posted the sharing link from there.

[RickAllison]

I was just trying to embed it. Oh well. I uploaded the image to Google Drive and posted the sharing link from there.

Excellent, I was actually hoping this strategy would work!

[Foxhound438]

Confirmed that my proposed combo does work by RAW.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66RprYE6_HHSjJFaGd4cjg5RTg/view?usp=sharing

*not caring about sage advice intensifies*

yes this works RAW, regardless of who says either way.

[DracoKnight]

yes this works RAW, regardless of who says either way.

I knew it worked RAW. I just wanted something concrete, because so many people on the forum say that it doesn't :smalltongue:

Question: why do you hate sage advice so much?

[Foxhound438]

Question: why do you hate sage advice so much?

it often directly contradicts RAW, as with the great weapon fighting style SA ruling. As an aircraft mechanic, strict by-the-book interpretation is the only interpretation. That's not everyone's bag of beans, but they don't have to play with me. if the dm specifically says we're doing things differently, that's fine, so long as it's not post-hoc "i don't like what you just did so i'm going to make something up to subvert it" kind of rulings.

edit: to include "there's this tweet that someone made outside any of the books saying that someone doesn't like a thing, and you didn't know about that tweet, but i'm going to treat it as gospel"

[had3l]

Sorry, I see people saying Spell Sniper, why do you even need Spell Sniper?

The reach of the quarterstaff is 5ft, and it is included as a weapon in Polearm Mastery.

[LudicSavant]

If one is going to completely rewrite a rule, they ought to be up front, honest, and transparent about it. No post-hoc tomfoolery.

[Sianthus]

If one is going to completely rewrite a rule, they ought to be up front, honest, and transparent about it. No post-hoc tomfoolery.

So you're saying every time they want to make an adjustment to the rules they wrote themselves, they have to publish a whole new book or similar to be "up front, honest, and transparent"? Using tweets is not the best medium for sure, but it's quick, painless, and interaction with the community. The alternative of printing a whole new book would require immense resources, resources that could have been better spent creating new adventures, new archetypes, new whatever for us to play with.

But yes, again, tweets are awful at getting the adjustments out to everyone. So they compile it every few months in Sage Advice compendiums, available free online for everyone. Easily accessible with a little bit of googling. So you can either play by the rules as the designers intended with the SAs, or you can play by strict RAW, or you can play by your own rules. All are perfectly fine. We all want to enjoy the hobby our way.

So here Dracoknight you have several choices.

SAs: What you intend is not allowed. AOOs with the polearm have to made with said weapon.

RAW: Combo away.

House Rules: Ask your DM. It's cool, and I would personally allow it since you made such an incredible feat investment. That's spell sniper with warcaster. And possibly polearm master if you want to use it when they enter your 10ft range.


There :D

[LudicSavant]

So you're saying every time they want to make an adjustment to the rules they wrote themselves, they have to publish a whole new book or similar to be "up front, honest, and transparent"?
No, that would be silly. Not sure how you got to that from the text you quoted. :smallconfused:

[Sianthus]

No. Not sure how you got to that from the text you quoted. :smallconfused:

So please give an example of how to best approach the changing of rules :).

EDIT: Actually, this isn't the best place to discuss it, we're diverting from the OP's question. I would be happy to discuss this with you in a new thread :). And forgive me if i sound aggressive, just how text online sounds sometimes.

[LudicSavant]

So please give an example of how to best approach the changing of rules :).

Though I was referring to DM behavior in the prior quote... a proper, official, and reasonably consistent errata would be nice.

[Sianthus]

Though I was referring to DM behavior in the prior quote... a proper, official, and reasonably consistent errata would be nice.

Ohhh I see! Apologies, my mistake! :D But yes, erratas like the SA compendiums should be more consistent and all. At least some are there though for those that want to use them :smallbiggrin:

[Arial Black]

The original clarification re: Warcaster and PAM was that the AoO provoked by an enemy entering your reach must be executed with that polearm, and not some random spell like eldritch blast.

Now that there are two cantrips that do involve a melee weapon attack, then the objection to using a cantrip instead of the polearm falls away.

[D.U.P.A.]

Meh, Sentinel is still more powerfull with lighter investment.

[JackPhoenix]

Just a note on the tweet: It was from Mike Mearls, not Jeremy Crawford, so it's got no bearing on RAW or RAI. He's still right, so it doesn't matter in this specific case, but his words don't mean much otherwise.

[Dalebert]

Sorry, I see people saying Spell Sniper, why do you even need Spell Sniper?

The reach of the quarterstaff is 5ft, and it is included as a weapon in Polearm Mastery.

Because the range of these cantrips is 5 ft. Your weapon might have reach, but that doesn't extend the range of the spell. Spell Sniper addresses that shortcoming (pun intended).

Tweets by the designers have no legal meaning in AL, btw, and it makes sense. DMs are expected to make legal rulings on the basis of certain AL-approved sources. It's not reasonable to expect them to follow and be aware of every Crawford tweet. They're allowed to disagree with Crawford until his rulings become official errata to an AL-approved source like the PHB.

So unless there's official errata to the contrary, I don't see the conflict between "PAM gives me an AoO" and "WC lets me cast a spell with an AoO". It would be quite absurd to say there's no synergy there to exploit at the cost of THREE feats (including Spell Sniper).

[had3l]

Because the range of these cantrips is 5 ft. Your weapon might have reach, but that doesn't extend the range of the spell. Spell Sniper addresses that shortcoming (pun intended).

Tweets by the designers have no legal meaning in AL, btw, and it makes sense. DMs are expected to make legal rulings on the basis of certain AL-approved sources. It's not reasonable to expect them to follow and be aware of every Crawford tweet. They're allowed to disagree with Crawford until his rulings become official errata to an AL-approved source like the PHB.

So unless there's official errata to the contrary, I don't see the conflict between "PAM gives me an AoO" and "WC lets me cast a spell with an AoO". It would be quite absurd to say there's no synergy there to exploit at the cost of THREE feats (including Spell Sniper).

So what? Quarterstaff DOESNT have reach, that is my point, you are making the AoO at 5ft, not 10ft.

The only feats you need are War Caster and Polearm Master if you are using a quarterstaff.

[MeeposFire]

Yea spell sniper is only needed if you are using a reach weapon with booming blade.