Warcaster

[Arial Black]

The Warcaster feat allows you to cast a cantrip (instead of making a melee attack) as an opportunity attack, as long as the cantrip only targets one creature.

Can you choose to cast eldritch blast (when you have more than one beam) as long as you target the same creature with all the beams?

Simply put, does 'only targets one creature' mean 'is only able to only target one creature' or 'the spell is able to target one or more creatures, but you choose to target only one'?

[RickAllison]

To establish this, it is useful to compare this to another ability with a similar restriction, Twinned Spell. Originally, it had the same text as Warcaster ("that targets only one creature") but it was re-written in the errata to state:


To be eligible
for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable
of targeting more than one creature at
the spell’s current level.

This restriction was NOT applied to Warcaster in the errata, so it stands to reason that Eldritch Blast should be usable so long as it only targets that creature.

[CantigThimble]

Based on the precedent of twin spell I would be forced to say that it only works on spells incapable of targeting a second creature. So green flame blade is out. Also, note that the spell doesn't need to be a cantrip. It just needs to have a casting time of one action and target a single creature.

Edit: I suppose it's also reasonable to infer that its absence in the errata indicates that it is not like twin spell. I infer that because it has the exact same wording as twin spell they meant the same thing.

[pwykersotz]

It wasn't specifically errata'd to my knowledge, but I'd look to the change they made in the sorcerer Twin Spell metamagic for RAI.


Twinned Spell (p. 102).
To be eligible for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level.

There's was a lot of discussion before that came out though, and your interpretation is one of the ones that people used.

Edit: Shadow-monk'd by a thimble of all things!

[Moctzal]

I don't see why not.

However, since Eldritch Blast is a ranged spell attack, and enemies are still in the adjacent square when you make an OA, you'd roll your attacks at disadvantage.

[DeAnno]

The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.

The English seems pretty clear to me. Eldritch Blast targets only that creature, even if it targets it multiple times. As for getting around the disadvantage, a reach weapon in hand, Crossbow Sniper, or Close Quarters Shooter all work.

[CantigThimble]

The English seems pretty clear to me. Eldritch Blast targets only that creature, even if it targets it multiple times. As for getting around the disadvantage, a reach weapon in hand, Crossbow Sniper, or Close Quarters Shooter all work.

Only thing is, I would have said the exact same thing about the wording of twin spell before they errata'd it. That gives me pause here.

[Drackolus]

I don't see why not.

However, since Eldritch Blast is a ranged spell attack, and enemies are still in the adjacent square when you make an OA, you'd roll your attacks at disadvantage.

Technically, each EB hits seperately and applies seperately. Thus, if you have repelling blast, the first hits, pushes them back 10 feet, and then they are out of melee range. Which is understandably dubious, but if you imagine you rapid-fire them instead of all at once, it makes sense.

At least, that's the ruling I heard. I can't source that, so I may be wrong. Anyway, picking up close quarters shooter from the underdark UA negates that as well as adding a +1 to "all ranged attacks" including spells. Crossbow Master also negates that penalty, despite being tailored mainly for crossbows.

[spartan_ah]

won't get into the debate whether it's eligible or not. I'll just mention that EB is done with disadvantage since it's adjacent target

[djreynolds]

I would let you do it


Eldritch blast is powerful as from very early on you can add your charisma to it at second level, but in time a red dragon sorcerer can add his charisma to his firebolt so who really cares anyhow.

It takes one feat to just do it on an AoO, and another to be free of disadvantage in melee. So you are looking at 8th level by the time a warlock can do this and how many more levels till the warlocks charisma is maxed. And its once a turn and he still has to role to hit.

It is not game breaking in any way.

[Citan]

The Warcaster feat allows you to cast a cantrip (instead of making a melee attack) as an opportunity attack, as long as the cantrip only targets one creature.

Can you choose to cast eldritch blast (when you have more than one beam) as long as you target the same creature with all the beams?

Simply put, does 'only targets one creature' mean 'is only able to only target one creature' or 'the spell is able to target one or more creatures, but you choose to target only one'?
Sure.
Nevermind the "does Twin errata apply". EB is a ranged attack roll so you would need to pick up a feat or fighting style to attack without disadvantage. Otherwise is it's a very reasonable rsk/reward balance. And if a player indeed made a build to get CQS or Crossbow Expert, he will probably have made some sacrifice elsewhere to get this so that's fair imo.


Based on the precedent of twin spell I would be forced to say that it only works on spells incapable of targeting a second creature. So green flame blade is out. Also, note that the spell doesn't need to be a cantrip. It just needs to have a casting time of one action and target a single creature.

Edit: I suppose it's also reasonable to infer that its absence in the errata indicates that it is not like twin spell. I infer that because it has the exact same wording as twin spell they meant the same thing.
I'd say otherwise about GFB. Technically, you only target ONE creature. It just so happens that if there is another creature adjacent, you can affect it with the rider.
Although you could argue indeed "then what happens if only creature next is an ally, or no creature?"... I'd say that create an opening for DM to makes things more interesting: be lenient and say the player can choose to "disperse" the additional energy, or force him to choose a valid target (if it's an ally so be it) or suffer damage himself.
I really don't think the latter would be too harsh. After all, this cantrip is supposed to be used when 2 enemies are close to one another, so you're supposed to be a minimum smart about when and how to use it. On single enemies, better use Booming Blade or more traditional cantrips such as Shocking Grasp.

[CantigThimble]

I'd say otherwise about GFB. Technically, you only target ONE creature. It just so happens that if there is another creature adjacent, you can affect it with the rider.
Although you could argue indeed "then what happens if only creature next is an ally, or no creature?"... I'd say that create an opening for DM to makes things more interesting: be lenient and say the player can choose to "disperse" the additional energy, or force him to choose a valid target (if it's an ally so be it) or suffer damage himself.
I really don't think the latter would be too harsh. After all, this cantrip is supposed to be used when 2 enemies are close to one another, so you're supposed to be a minimum smart about when and how to use it. On single enemies, better use Booming Blade or more traditional cantrips such as Shocking Grasp.

According to sage advice green flame blade doesn't work with twin spell, so if warcaster works like twin spell does then you can't use green flame blade with it because it is theoretically capable of targeting a second creature.

Personally I don't agree with the twin spell ruling at all and probably wouldn't run it that way in my games but that's what RAI are here.

[Joe the Rat]

My read on it is that it can only be a single target spell to start with. This means that EB would be out past 4th level, along with acid splash, thunderclap, scorching ray, magic missile, up-leveled Command, charm person, or Hold person, for example.

You still have the ranged attack-at-close issue (unless you are wielding a reach weapon, in which case your OA doesn't trigger until they are at a good target range), but you can avoid the penalty by using single target save spells (sacred flame, vicious mockery, frostbite, non-up-leveled charm spells, etc.) instead.

[Citan]

According to sage advice green flame blade doesn't work with twin spell, so if warcaster works like twin spell does then you can't use green flame blade with it because it is theoretically capable of targeting a second creature.

Personally I don't agree with the twin spell ruling at all and probably wouldn't run it that way in my games but that's what RAI are here.
Except that the majority of people here agree that since the errata targeted Twin metamagic explicitely, and only it, it's not supposed to apply to Warcaster too. ;)
Which is overall a very logical assessment.
After all, the writings were very different from the start.

Twin has always been about restricting the CHOICE of a spell to one that designate only one creature as a target of attack roll of saving throw.

Warcaster has always been about restricting the USE of any spell you know to only affect the creature that triggered the reaction.

Confer the numerous threads on this particular topic that arised when the errata was released if you're not convinced, I don't want to open yet again this Pandora box ;)).

[DivisibleByZero]

The English seems pretty clear to me. Eldritch Blast targets only that creature, even if it targets it multiple times. As for getting around the disadvantage, a reach weapon in hand, Crossbow Sniper, or Close Quarters Shooter all work.

I disagree. And the English seems pretty clear to me as well.
If the spell is capable of targeting multiple creatures, then it cannot be used with the WC's OA replacement spell.

[Citan]

Please guys, don't start again this endless discussion.
Those who cannot read English clearly enough to understand the nuances or pay attention to a deliberate difference in formulation may always do as they wish in their games, as long as they tell their players beforehand. :smallbiggrin:

For those who hesitate, just know that allowing Eldricht Blast, even agonizing one, would NOT be game-breaking in any way, just a tad more powerful than other cantrips of other casters, at the price of disadvantage for classic Warlock builds.
(However, you would obviously not allow any opportunity attack from others if the blast is also Repelling, since it would not be a voluntarily move).

[CantigThimble]

Please guys, don't start again this endless discussion.
Those who cannot read English clearly enough to understand the nuances or pay attention to a deliberate difference in formulation may always do as they wish in their games, as long as they tell their players beforehand. :smallbiggrin:

The deliberate difference in formulation could just as easily be a result of the fact that the warcaster triggered spell must target the creature that triggered it, not just any one creature like twin spell.

Please, don't imply that only people who can't read properly could possibly disagree with you. I hope you understand how infuriating that is.

[RickAllison]

If I'm remembering correctly, they already patched up the largest loophole of Warcaster and EB (combining it with Polearm Mastery to launch people trying to enter the space). Shoving people who are already leaving doesn't affect much unless there are pits.

[Citan]

The deliberate difference in formulation could just as easily be a result of the fact that the warcaster triggered spell must target the creature that triggered it, not just any one creature like twin spell.

Please, don't imply that only people who can't read properly could possibly disagree with you. I hope you understand how infuriating that is.

I know, I'm sorry, I admit having succumbed to the temptation (although I thought the added smiley was enough to understand that I was joking. Please accept my apologies if you felt offended). :)

It's just that it's the kind of question that spawns again like, every few weeks, and there will never really be a consensus on this.
Unless of course WoTC manages, for once, to publish an errata that rewrites the whole thing in a way that doesn't just replace an interrogation with another (remember "unarmed as weapon" XD).

In fact I think it could be useful for the 5e forum as a whole to create a pinned topic with a part that lists obvious answers to recurring questions (such as multiclass spell level calcul) and another part that lists neverending debate "feel free to DM as you wish we will never know in the end". :smallbiggrin: