So i gots the book and within about 10 minutes of my GF looking at it she came up with this
Lv. 4 Warlock Human
Feats: Polearm Master, War Caster
Invocation: Repelling Blast
Cantrip Eldritch Blast
Long story short, you have reach 10 ft {and} enemies provoke when they enter it {and} you can use your eldritch blast when they do so {and} it pushes 10 ft (you can shoot 2 shots at them on Lv.5 pushing a total of 20 ft if you hit)
And Sentiniel feat just bearly doesn't allow them to have thier movement 100% stopped based on a wording technicallity (i might ignore it)
none of this is really too bad considering I have yet to see if there is a way to break 1 reaction per round (lemmie know if you spot one though)
Half-ogre spiked chain fighter is REBORN!!!!
tehsquirrely wrote:
Guardian_Kaiser wrote:
Guardian_Kaiser wrote:
Guardian_Kaiser wrote:
A few things, I'm impressed on the vigourousness of the rebuttle, as i thought it wasn't particularly broken or rules abusive, as much as simply a good combo.
Odd Some used RAI and other RAW so its hard to coment to 1 directly
Well first to the "not intended" guy: Polearm master + Warcaster I would imagin "flavor wise, a character with said training" perfectly reasonable to use an outward extended polearm to create an opponing for thier magical attack to land, infact it could be part of the very somatic compentent thier completing with thier weapon.
Don't forget you are wielding it the entire time, war caster allows you to be doing so while you cast spells.
Polearm Master triggers when they enter your reach (Which seems to be RAW most likely not 10 ft, though to be perfectly by every word written "Reach" may wish to say "while you attack with it" because once you attack once your reach is now 5 ft greater (obviously not inteneded).
However the feat does not say exclusivly that you have to take a AoO when they enter, so you can still preform one when they leave, also if we use the RAMMI version (having 10 ft reach). It is also possible to claim (a fairly big stretch i would admit) that they entered/left your unarmed strike ranged (to trigger war caster). (Or I suppose more believable the not reach 1d4 blungeoning end on your polearm, but RAW that might not even aactually be a weapon and doesn't exist except as a bonus action)
so you might also need crossbow expert to avoid the disadvantage on the point blank spell casting attack roll (doesn't say with a bow, sure its the name of the feat but to have feats that achieve 3 things and not a massive feat blout I imagine the name (especially w/o even a xbow prof requirement) is just a name, or you could argue it wa s aspecial training you did with a xbow that allowed you to realize the potential to have it apply to other concepts)
Finally I didn't actually drop this out there like it was supposed to be the end all be all super broken combo, infact i said i thought it was perfectly fine, enemies are expected to use strategy to win (avoid the dangerous polearm user) use ranged attacks, cast spells, or send a rush of minions at the person who can only stop one of them.
{sorry for terrible spelling, I'm bad at it 
) {Edited: repeatidly for clarity, still might be spelling issues}
I do appreciate the responses (I will be running this soon, though appearently i have to decided between bits of RAW, RAI, and RAMMI though i imagine it will use the rule of "my GF liked it, lets see if it breaks the game"
TheMattyLee wrote:
All being said and done, The combo is still pretty solid, is there any drawback or restriction to using a spell that doesn't require an attack roll for this combo? (Such as save based ones)
Going by the assumption you allow this combo in your game (as it does not work by the RAI, despite ambiguous wording) - there is no drawback to casting a save-spell, or melee attack spell while in melee.
The reason eldritch blast and many other spells suffer disadvantage in melee, has nothing to do with the fact you are casting a spell, and everything to do with the fact you are making a ranged attack.
p195, Ranged Attacks in Close Combat wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Guardian_Kaiser wrote:
Guardian_Kaiser wrote:
Reach is only when attacking. So your reach is 5'.
Polearm feat let's you attack when they come into reach. 10'->5'
OA's happen BEFORE movement, so you attack when they are at 10'.
So far, so good.
However, you must make the OA with your polearm. Not eldrich blast. So the combo fails here.
Kalani wrote:
Between the RAW and RAMMI of the Reach property, RAMMI is actually the only valid one. The RAW is a straight-up catch-22. You cannot attack a target that is 10' away until your reach extends that far, and your reach does not extend that far until you attack.
By strict RAW, the Reach property does literally nothing. For now, the only "official" alternative we have is the RAMMI.
So the OP's combo works, until/unless we get errata that clarifies Reach as something other than the RAMMI, or errata that specifies that you must use the polearm you're wielding to make the OA granted by Polearm Master.
souldoubt wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Hmmm.. this falls apart rationally.
Okay, let's say for a moment that wielding a polearm-- a heavy weapon that needs to be wielded with both hands, did extend your threatening range by 5'. Now, this is justifiable in the idea that if someone comes charging at you, it is impossible to move faster than you can swing the polearm-- because you don't need to swing it. They have to dodge around your polearm to get at you.
Okay, but then the reason you are getting this opportunity attack has everything to do with the polearm. They are trying to dodge around your polearm. How then at this point can you say 'so now that the property of the weapon I am wielding is that it will get a chance to strike before the incoming opponent and since I get an attack here, I will drop the weapon that is giving me the attack and instead build up magical energy within my hand that I unleash at the enemy'.
What the hell is that? That clearly doesn't work. Just obviously on its surface and face the whole concept does not at all work. The polearm is what is granting the opportunity attack, if you are not attacking with the polearm in some way (which I suppose could be an attempt to push someone back or trip rather than a simple stab) then you would not get the attack. You simply wouldn't.
Moreover, how the hell is Eldritch blast an option for an opportunity attack at all? Any spell for that matter? Or a bow?
If you simply get a free attack against any enemy that moves within reach of your missile attack, then mages and archers would be pretty much guaranteed to get a free attack once a turn against literally any enemy who moves on the field on any turn. Why wouldn't they? They are in fact moving within the "reach" of the weapon.
This is obviously something that should not be allowed because even if the rules were terribly enough written for it to be allowed (which they currently are not) it falls apart entirely under the briefest scrunity of the actual actions that this little mechanical monstrousity is trying to pull.
I think in this case "my girlfriend" was sort of like when somebody tells their shrink, "This friend of mine...." But the use of this imaginary character had two intended sub-texts:
1) "Even a girl, who is more of a supermodel than a gamer, saw this glaring flaw in the game. That's how obvious it is."
2) "I have a girffriend."
All-in-all a very clever ploy. +25xp.
Hebitsuikaza, your counterargument is what falls apart as soon as you say "drop the weapon," as at that point it becomes clear you don't grasp the fundamentals of the combo. I suggest familiarizing yourself with the feats and features mentioned. There is an argument to be made that a PC should have to use the polearm to make the granted OA, but in order to make that argument it helps to know what the premise of the initial combo is before you shoot off at the keyboard.
No, Hebitsuikaza's right. Eldritch Blast has somatic components. You can't cast it if you're holding a two-handed weapon. And Polearm Master requires that you be WIELDING the polearm to get the OA.
Fundamentally, the combo makes no sense, from a flavor perspect and from the rules of how you cast spells and wield weapons. This is why Pact of the Blade says you create the weapon in your empty hand – two-handed weapons fundamentally don't work with casters unless they're versatile or the caster has some way to avoid somatic components.
Read the War Caster feat. It allows you to cast spells while wielding weapons. It also allows you to cast a spell in place of making an opportunity attack.
Don't think of the warlock performing jazz-hands and jibber jabber when he makes the opportunity attack. Instead, think of the warlock channeling eldritch power through his weapon which he unleashes upon his target with a touch from the blade.
Oh, my bad. I missed the part where War Caster was a part of the combo. Very well, continue on! All is awesome.
Not to be overly cryptic, but this combo gets even better. Keep digging around and theory crafting. lol, I don't want to spoil it until I unleash the full combo on my ST. (And get it ok'd since everything is completely RAW. ;) )
Lawolf wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Hebitsuikaza wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Eldritch blast works fine at ranged. The AoO polearm gives you lets you attack while your target is still 10' away. When you get an AoO, you can use a spell instead (So says warcaster).
That's all there is to it. It's a fairly simple read. RAW is clear. RAI is clear.
If you want to house rule it in your own game, that's fine. But the rules are clear.
Edit: Ah, whatever, maybe it is reasonable to blast them with the Eldritch Blast when they dodge around the polearm. There may still be an erratum, though.
Overpromises wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
The OP forgot to mention the rather important aspect to my build of being a Blade Pact Warlock, it's the only way for a Warlock to use a Polearm without needing more feats or cross classing. It being a pact weapon also means that the bonus attack from Polearm Mastery benefits from Thirsting Blade (+Cha to dmg).
I'm no ones girlfriend last I checked, and I came up with the build while alpha testing and posted it on Enworld when people started getting their hands on PHBs.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6353650#post6353650
Don't suppose your gf spent any time on Enworld last week? That's the forum where the guy who got his PHB a few days early was answering questions so it saw a lot of traffic.
Dastion wrote:
Hurray for using gamey language in the books.
If only they took the time to actually describe and explain how each rule and ability works, instead of thinking that 3-sentenced phrases are self explanatory because hey we got all those technical terms in the rules already... we probably wouldn't have to wonder and second-guess what is the actual "intended" use for so many dubious abilities, nor would the text probably allow for a completely different interpretation of the ability that potentially messes the game because of things like a misplaced comma or some such minor detail in the text.
ok lets look at it as written, step by step.
someone enters a space 10ft away from you. polearm master says "while weilding (weapon) other creatures provoke an oppertunity attack when they enter your reach. Reach says weapon add's 5ft to your reach when you attack with it. these two rules do not have anything to do with each other. reach says "when you attack" polear master says "when they enter your reach" and your reach is defined by your size, not your weapon. so your reach is always 5' when medium unless you are attacking with a reach weapon. the point of the feat is that instead of them leaving 5' of you, they enter 5' of you and you get to hit them. so thats how that part works.
now an opertunity attack is granted when they enter within 5' of you as per the polearm master feat. the war caster feat says "when a hostile creature's movement (coming within 5' in the case of the polearm feat) provokes an opertunity attack, you can INSTEAD use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature. so the war caster feat supercedes the polearm master feat because it replaces the opertunity attack with a reaction attack. now because of the fact the creature did not provoke the oppertunity attack until it was alrady within 5' you would have disadvantage on casting a ranged spell at the creature as your reaction as per the attack rules of shooting a ranged spell at a creature within 5'.
as a side note, if you are thinking that the oppertunity attack interupts movement it does, but they are already within 5' when you would interupt so you are not stoping them at 10' away, that is impossible as your reach is not 10' away for provoking opertunity attacks with the polearm master feat. there is no difference of leaving to entering that 5' here. the reach weapon grants you an attack at 10' thats all it does. the polearm master feat lets you oppertunity attack once they have entered your reach, which is always 5' (unless your not medium size, but i think we are basically discussing medium size here)
it's not broken at all, it took up 2 stat bumps, or human and 1 stat bump just to cast a spell at someone when they entered 5'. so you are only doing this at lvl 4 minimum, and if the DM is a halfway decent DM he will know your character build and put some ranged attackers in the enemy CR to specifically attack the warlock, is that meta aming sure, but you also meta gamed to a degree by trying to create a situation when no one could enter your melee range. but with dissadvantage on that spell attack you will probly miss with the bolt and pushback, and then that bugbear hits you for the extra crushing damage...
so yeah, very cool trick, but not exactly all it'c cracked up to be when taken out of the vacuum of theory and into a DM's mind and gameplay.
I understand that . I even mentioned there were other routes to get access to Polearms. If you really want to be gamey you don't technically need to be proficient.
The story just seemed off and incomplete for how many factors must be known to bring this build together, especially considering the amount of time the information has been public - I alpha tested.
I would also point out that I think it's completely reasonable for a DM to rule that attacks triggered by Pole Arm Master can only be made with a Pole Arm. The fact that the build allows you to get a second attack with your pact Blade to trigger Thirsting Blade more than once.
TheMattyLee wrote:
I suppose it's possible that the intent of the text is "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach for the purpose of attacking with it" (as opposed to, for instance, your reach for touch spells or picking locks). If so, WotC should really clear up the wording. The "when you attack" makes it time-conditional, specifying the moment you attack, which occurs after you've picked a target (which must be within your 5' reach). Even "when attacking" would be a superior wording, though "for the purose of attacking" is clearer still.
There would still be the problem that you can't make an opportunity attack when a creature enters your reach, because the rules for opportunity attacks specifically state that the attack occurs before the creature moves (which would leave them outside your reach at the time of the attack). That could be fixed by specifying that it's "an attack made as a reaction" or some simlar wording, rather than an opportunity attack which has a lot more baggage attached because it's designed to work when a creature leaves your reach.
dmgorgon wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Dastion wrote:
Whether or not the rules support it, it wouldn't happen in my game. It's cheesy power-gaming that would be a detriment to the game. If you want to be a polearm-wieling warlock who channels power through your weapon cool, but you are not going to get eldritch blast OAs with knockback. Sorry.
Atheosis wrote:
Suzume_Stjohn wrote:
shamurai7 wrote:
My knee jerk reaction to the combo isnt' to allow it either. But that's because I find it questionable storywise - I just have trouble seeing it work out that way.
My second thought is this - "Is it overpowered? If no, then does it really matter if the players enjoy it?"
My third thought is - "What the heck? Why not?"
TiaNadiezja wrote:
By the way, a lot of the rules examples going back and forth seem focused on grid based combat and whether the target is 10 feet away when it enters the 5 foot area. Keep in mind movement is measured in feet so the target is travelling from 5 feet to 4 feet during this attack. At 6 feet it is out of your natural reach.
I also didnt see the mention of enemies who have reach. If your enemy has reach 10 then they would not provoke an attack if they are at maximum range. They would however if they moved within 5 or less feet of the Polarm wielder.
I am playing a PM fighter now and tried both versions of the rules and in all cases the OA when the target enters 5 just works cleaner and seems to be the intent allowing me to strike at 10 feet yeat getting an attack if the enemy closes while I am "threatening" it. With the 5 foot rule it just behaves as a simulation of a standard OA and feels like it fits with the rest of combat seamlessly.
There was confirmation on twitter from Jeremy Crawford that weapons with the reach property only apply when attacking. Note, however, that doesn't apply to natural reach.
mellored wrote:
RAW it works, RAI is a different thing. You just need to decide at your table if you want to call it a bug or a feature.
This combo lacks the reach and bladelock shenanigans, but it's another example of OA cheese.
Tomelock/Druid + arcane/druidic focus(staff) + Shilelagh + Thorn Whip + PM + WC + Sentinel = C'mere so I can whup ya with ma' grabbin' stick!
Dastion wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
Devils-Advocate wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
1eejit wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
Mike Merls has also said that Jeremy Crawford was the authority.