Love the idea but wouldn't work at my table. Sentinel reads: "When you hit a creature with an **opportunity attack**, the creature's speed becomes 0" whereas Warcaster reads: "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." Per that EXACT wording, casting a spell does NOT count as an opportunity attack and wouldn't trigger the speed reduction aspect of sentinel. However, this ruling on the wording opens up some terrifying combos by combining sentinel and warcaster with booming blade. An opportunity attack occurs after a creature has committed to move but before movement occurs. Thus, you strike a creature with a spell that punishes movement right before their movement! 😅 Anyways, sorry to be a "rules lawyer". Love what you do, keep up the good work! Edit: Apparently, while no errata for this change exists, dnd beyond says you can cast a spell **as** an opportunity attack when you take this feat. Thus, the official ruling is unclear.

The player was creative and read the rules, it's really annoying but also damn clever

I didn’t think you could use Warcaster on the PAM incoming attack. It was intended to be used with the Polearm. It wouldn’t be too different though - just use the ability and then on your turn move away.

Unfortunately warcaster specifies that no spell can be chosen that has the possibility of targeting multiple creatures. Eldritch blast is incompatible

@@HANGMANProject This is a common misconception, but Warcaster simply says that the spell must target only one creature. Twinned Spell is the feature that demands only one creature can be targetted! That in mind, I could have limited this combo at the time by ruling that Sentinel didn't trigger on the Warcaster spell, but to be honest I'm happy I missed that at the time, it was a much funnier session as a result.

FUCK

Best comment

Everything seems fine till that Eldritch blast knocks the clay golem arm off and starts to chuck the arm

that's the funniest shit I've read all week, thank you for this even if I'm 5 months late

Nooo... I wanted to comment that 😢

Now he spreads his misery to other DMs.

Too bad this channel sucks ass too with tons of misinformation

That has to be the most toxic D&D group ever...

@@CS-zn6pp DnDshorts is one of the worst DnD content creators to have ever existed. Everyone with a brain agrees he is like top 3 worst DnD channels

@@CS-zn6pp or more like the DM just couldn't improvise. The player paid 3 feats to make niche build that is countered by simple ranged attack, either let them have their fun (y'know coz that's your job as the DM) or improvise and make your clay golem can throw rocks to give them challenge.

"I have 101 HP" "the golem punches you in the face for 1 damage first. Then it casts POWER WORD KILL."

@@doughboy_6439 Can't punch you in the face for 1 damage. Eldritch blayaaast

@@thatpunkcatte The Golem throws a rock at you for 1 damage and then casts powerword kill.

This precisely. Folks don't actually read the interactions and are flummoxed when broken shit happens

That and Polearm Master specifically says "A Reach Weapon attack."

@@austinjeffries5741 yeppers

@@austinjeffries5741 except it doesn't?? the warcaster + sentinel is right tho, but polearm master doesnt say that

@@GuilhermeHenrique-rg2cy It does

Good thing it can only do that twice

@gormold4163 why only twice? It's creator might have been extra generous with extra balls.. or would that be a nut golem?

Or picking up massive rocks and throwing them

Or throw other golems

This is just that Mega Man boss, Yellow Devil

Huge. Tremendous, even. Modern problems require modern solutions.

Won't work for Long. You can't move, and he pushed you with a reaction. Now, when he hits, he pushes you further, so it is a slaughter.

​@@eafigarellathey said range of 15ft, which would be outside of the PC's range

​@@Calebgoblin for polearm master. But during their turn theyre STILL slamming 10-20ft because of eldricth blast.

@@johnsanchez9944 but they can still walk now

yeah the DM gave up because they allowed something to work that if they took 1 minute to read they would see it was not actually possible.

Ngl, you guys sound like it would really suck to play DND with you

@@animateddream1035 And you sound like an entitled powergamer

@@Ramschat I let my players do whatever they want because whether they're min/maxing/powergaming or not. They should have fun. That's the whole point. I said what I said because you seem like you have shit attitudes and are constantly grumpy. Imagine playing a game of imaginary wizards with ppl who think it's serious business, lol. If players want to powergame just get better at DMing

​@@RamschatBetter Powergaming then letting the DM make every situation a Slog Fest because they felt litigious enough to let it be by the book all the time.

more like "bring it on."😎

Haha nice

this, this is exactly what i thought, as a DM it's our job to improvise if one of the players absolutely counters one of the bosses, improvise the golem notices he isn't able to reach the Warlock to slap him, so he proceeds to pick up rocks and throw them at the Warlock

​@@DragoSmashnah, it's called "let your players have their moment". It's one fight. Let them feel accomplished for their clever combo.

@@Darkvalentine333 "letting your players have their moment" it's something that, while fair, needs to be done sparingly, and in the correct situation i approve of letting the players feel good for an investment in a clever combo, but the DM also has to be smart to let them

​@@Darkvalentine333 Sadly this combo breaks at war caster because it REPLACES your opportunity attack with a ranged spell attack so sentinel doesn't trigger.

Meaning?

​@@wanderer5438sentinel only works if you hit the Melee Weapon Attack, and with warcaster you're using a Ranged Spell Attack, like Eldritch Blast.

Actually 🤓 what they did followed the rules. The first line in sentinel reads that if you hit an enemy with an attack of opportunity, their speed is reduced to zero. Then on pole arm master, when an enemy reaches your weapon's reach. You can take an attack of opportunity (no mentions that it has to be the pole arm btw). Finally with war caster, which reads that instead of an opportunity attack you can instead cast a spell. Meaning they all proc off each other pretty well. However. You can make the argument since the feat reads that you are making a spell attack instead of attack of opportunity (as it states in war caster feat). It doesn't proc sentinel.

@@shirleyjoking actually, Opportunity Attack reads in the PHB "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 occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." And War Caster reads "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 target only that creature." Clearly you make a melee attack with what is provoking the Opportunity Attack. Clearly War Caster states "cast a spell, instead of making an opportunity attack" Shirley you agree?

@@bringthedoom I literally said that at the end That you can indeed argue that point. So yes I do agree. And ultimately would end up on the dm to decide. But if the player goes all into this play style sinking in 3 feats and forgoing ASI's and other broken fears such as elven accuracy, gwm, sharpshooter, and the likes. It's not that bad. Since if the enemy is range. None of that matters lmao

That was my thought too. Any heavy hitting ranged combatant could know the warlocks teeth out.

Well you better hope that heavy rock was right where you landed cuz 0 movement speed means you cant walk over to it

@@fasmir5688 "the golem bends over and tears up a chunk of the earth which he heaves at you" or even "the golem rips a chunk of his torso out and hurls it at you, please roll a dex save or take 1d10 damage and be blinded by the mud" my point was the problem presented only holds up if you assume what's printed on the monsters stat block are the only options the DM has.

@@fasmir5688 plenty of other ranged attacks exist. Also it wouldn't need to carry the same rock. This strategy is good but it's just a slightly different take on the classic sentinel/polearm master build from the inception of 5e. It really only gets kinda crazy if you want to ghostlance with echo knight.

@@fasmir5688warcaster doesn’t count as an opportunity attack. It actually says so on the feat itself.

or backup, two weaker clay golems would win here

@rory8182 also a good option. I still think your boss monster should have some way to affect people from far away. It's kinda awkward if the centrepiece of the encounter spends a whole turn doing nothing.

Or the ability to improvise, like say throwing rocks. It's a clay golem, it could probably chuck rocks pretty hard, and make them either by hitting the ground hard, making difficult terrain, or from itself, perhaps hindering player movement because clay is sticky. This makes both opponents now have to be careful about each other's ranges, rather than just giving up.

Honestly, almost all 1v1 encounters end very poorly for the "boss" monster for this reason. It's just not a very good format for a D&D encounter at all. Either one side stomps the other, or if the fight seems evenly matched, there is a high chance that the player will get frustrated by bad dice rolls. In my opinion the very first mistake was deciding to do this as a 1v1. The second mistake was not looking at the Warlock's character sheet. But yes, this is a very cheesy build that arguably doesn't even work RAW.

@CrizzyEyes that's usually true. If I wanted to do a 1v1 scenario I probably wouldn't do it as a by-the-books combat. Maybe something like a rock paper scissors style mini game.

This golem plays way too much Minecraft

Or throw sand in the target's face. Now he has to chuck eldritch blasts with disadvantage.

I think it only replaces the attack with a spell not the whole attack of opportunity reaction.

@@Ruiso7 it clearly say "you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an opportunity attack". Hardly more explicit.

​@@Sephiroth517I'd rule that it can still move then since the opportunity attack is what reduces the movement.

@@thatoneguy-yc1sj which is already how it's supposed to be ruled, since the opportunity attack reducing the movement never actually happened, and therefore never hit.

dude, it totally works with cantrips & has been covered in sage advice, basically "spell" includes everything, "leveled spell" includes levels 1 & up

Have the monster take the dodge action before closing in, making the monster focus another party member once it realizes it can't affect the player, *make the monster throw boulders* like. If you can't adapt to your players strategy should you be DM'ing?

DMs who complain about flying characters when they realise they can just give the enemies a crossbow:

let's be honest if your using feat combos like this you are intentionally exploiting rules as written which for some games is perfectly fine but different DMs have their own style and if you cannot respect that some may not like that intentionally breaking the mechanics of the game style of play then maybe you should look for a different game or have a conversation about expectations@@seasnaill2589

​@@burgernthemomrailerwhen I complain about flying characters it is never combat related. It is always exploration and dungeon/puzzles related

​@@SpectralKnightimpose a higher DC for them because of height

Whether or not it works doesn't really matter when they get pushed back up to 80 feet every round.

@@dakotaanderson7906 true, forgot to take that into account :v

it actually does matter...quite a bit. well, it can matter, clay golems are slow enough that you don't actually need tricks like this to kite it indefinitely. (20ft) but beyond that... first of all the 80 feet only applies at level 17+ which this wasn't. second: if a creature is still able to move, it has options. it can dash, for instance, to try to close that gap and if it can get within melee range of you (after the warcaster combo), even having used its action to dash. now you're at disadvantage to attack with EB *and* you potentially provoke an opportunity attack if you want to move away. 3rd: some creatures have enough movement that being pushed back 10-20 feet wouldn't be enough to stop them even with just their regular movement. thus allowing them to still get their action off. and now that they're in melee, if you want to EB them away, you're at disadvantage. @@dakotaanderson7906

Look bro Wizards developers and writers are not harvard grad lawyers. It’s not a computer code with fixed labels- it replaced the op attack with a spell; I.e you can use a spell but it’s still an op attack. RAW and rules as intended they interact fine. The writers are not disney lawyers jesus.

@@sergioordonez841 "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" It clearly states that you're not using your reaction for an opportunity attack but casting a spell instead and reads like it's intended to be treated like that.

Even 2 Clay Golems aren't really enough, because they are naturally slow (move speed of 20.) So you repelling blast 1 of them far enough away on your turn that it can't dash and get next to you (use your own movement to walk away if necessary after doing at least 1 push) then use the PAM/WC combo to push the other one away when it gets too close.

@@johncox7169 you only have one reaction per turn. If they're coming up together, then you get to choose one to stop, and one that gets to attack you. It ain't hard. Further, my solution is pretty clearly a sarcastically simple one. If you really wanna balance against this, just take a lower CR monster and use like 5 of them.

“I shoot the stones”

Unfortunatelly... sentinel ignores the disengage action when you need to do an attack of opportunity...

​@@Ruiso7technically speaking, the sentinel feat specifies "if they take the disengage action before leaving your reach". Nothing about taking the disengage action while entering your range. So I'd say it's up to DM ruling as to how the feats interact and what would work.

That's what I was thinking. Disengage or dodge to avoid getting hit, until you eventually corner the caster, and beat him over the head.

Problem here is action economy. Yeah sure the golem can disengage or even take the dodge action before approaching. However then all the warlock needs to do is leave the range as well (they could even Misty step) and just hit the golem from afar while pushing them farther away with repelling blast.

​@@July-gj1stthey wouldn't even need to disengage, as the shove from repelling blast on their turn would move it out of melee range again, meaning that it would have to disengage on its turn again to get closer

It was a oneshot. The Player probably knew his matchup

@@deimos39 they usually don't, either way why would you make a pure melee boss with zero ranged options lol, let alone the dm could just use...disengage, idk 'literally impossible' I guess

​@@shotgunammoalso he forgot how those 3 feats work. If you chain sentinel off pole arm master you can't chain war caster. And vise versa.

A felow Pratchett fanatic!

@@thelastfaeinthewoods There's not enough of us in this world.

You also get disadvantage on the melee range Eldritch blasts

​@@nayber2352nope, with polearm master you can have reach of 10 feet Which triggers Opportunity Attack and disadvantage comes from enemy getting to range of 5ft

@@nayber2352 Not until the golem gets with 5ft of the warlock. RAW from the PHB: Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t incapacitated. Many DMs would probably rule that it's being within melee range of a hostile creature that counts (as I would), but RAW, disadvantage only happens within 5ft, not the melee range of the hostile creature. The enemy's reach doesn't matter. Additionally, clay golems only have a reach of 5ft, while the polearm being used likely has 10ft reach, so the EB would go off before the warlock is within the clay golem melee range.

While I personally wouldn’t do it, one could also argue that eldritch blast wouldn’t work with war caster because war caster requires the spell to only target the creature that provoked the opportunity attack, and Eldritch Blast is technically capable of targeting more than one creature. If you rule that war caster follows the same targeting rule as the twinned spell meta magic, eldritch blast would not be able to be used with it.

@@loganavila1401I remember seeing a thing on Sage Advicd that EB does work as long as you target all at the same target

I would simply ignore the Sentinel feat, but this still makes kiting really, really effective. Disengage, move 30ft, have your reaction hit to force golem to dash, disengage again.

​@@Olav_Hansenignoring it seems pretty lazy and frankly dumb on a dms part. It literally only works on something with only melee attacks and if you miss your reaction all three feats are useless its a pretty balanced and tame combo

Well, it's not a "fix", it's RAW, when using the Warcaster feat's effect, you do NOT make an opportunity attack at all.

I mean, this makes it weaker, but it’s also worth pointing out that this lowers the requisites for this combo as well. I’d be curious to see how this tactic works out against an opponent with ranged attacks though.

I came here to say this exact thing.

This is the point when the DM would throw a rock at the player.

Versatility is key for a DM

On behalf of all of your melee players, please don't. If you ment doing this as a player also please don't.

@Xphonic6 well, my friend, you can't stop me

​@@Xphonic6you have a whole party, the monster only has one reaction

@@magnetronman298 your still going to have one person unable to hit because how they line up in initiative after the bosses turn so they just keep getting hit. You could just not use it and target a different person so someone else can endure pain but you still have to not use your reaction because you're just eliminating someone's turn indefinitely.

​@@9895_your right, its your game so do whatever you want. I just wouldn't encourage anyone on the internet to do this and have it be fun/engaging because it can get real frustrating fast if not done right. It quite literally makes someone unable to play their melee class with one counterplay, don't get hit.

Though it's technically not correct since Warcaster allows you to cast a spell INSTEAD of making an attack of opportunity, so that wouldn't trigger Sentinel, technically.

These combos? This combo doesn't work in the first place Pole arm master specifically says the opportunity attack has to be a MELEE reach weapon such as a glaive, pike, halberd. War caster REPLACES your opportunity attack with a spell which means sentinel doesn't activate because you didn't hit with a MELEE attack. The Eldritch blast with repelling blast still functions. However it doesn't lose movement at all.

@@stock_movie1875 fun> rules as written

@@stock_movie1875 also if you read the actual abilities none of them specifiy a melle attack. polearm master says if you are wielding one you get a reaction, and sentenel just says opportunity attack not melee. dont rules lawyer if you dont know the rules

​@@giblesdestruct yes sentinel just needs an opportunity attack, but warcaster replaces an opportunity attack, meaning the spell you cast is not an opportunity attack and doesnt trigger sentinel

except none of these work as written. Also the DM just forgot about the disengage action apparently

"entire build" = two feats and a reach polearm lol.

​@@Kurse_of_Kall is it really that hard to count to three lmao

​@@PersonaRandomNumbers Warcaster is irrelevant here. Not only does Eldritch Blast via Warcaster NOT TRIGGER SENTINEL, it also doesn't matter: If you have a reach of 10ft, you get the Polearm Master opportunity attack when the enemy approaches within 10ft, attack and Sentinel sets its speed to zero. This shuts down any creature without reach or a ranged attack just fine. No need to try to push them back with Eldritch Blast.

@@HerpaderpleSentinel ignores the disengage action

Ah but it's eldritch blast so he should still be able to hit 3 of them or so.

@@m0nkEz no with the war caster feat you are only allowed to attack the one creature that provoked the opportunity attack. but on his turn he could split up the eldritch blasts = pushed back but no sentinel

No. That's shit. You don't cheat the player. This, what you just described? It's bad DMing. No. Bad. Do not do this. You reviewed and approved this character for use in the game if you did your job, you don't get to change shit around to fuck over their character after the session starts. Wtf. No. Let your player have their moment. This kind of DM cheating isn't fun. Big L. The player didn't cheat, you approved the character. Take this shit you got, put it in a box marked mistakes and put it in your brain museum of "shit not to do". A DM's job is to provide a fun group experience, not cheese their players.

That just sounds like the golems die faster. Just throw a rock, improvised weapons are allowed for monsters as much as players.

@@JarieSuicune depends how much hp you choose to give them, but since the damage is spread over multiple enemies it would at least mean the warlock takes damage and has to think a little bit more, they could also throw rocks or something as smaller guys

Eldritch Blast also can target more than one creature from 5t level onward, invalidating it for warcaster.

nope, warcaster just requires you only target the one that provoked the opportunity attack. it doesn't disallow spells that could target multiple people like Twinned spell does @@CrypticNazo

@@CrypticNazoYou're confusing this with the Twinned spell rules, which are worded differently. Warcaster never says the spell must only be able to target one creature, it says you must only target that creature. The former is based on spell parameters, while the latter is based on player action.

I think you're right and then wrong. I agree that the war caster feat no longer counts as an OA but as a spell attack now, so that means the sentinel feat doesn't work. But the polearm master just says that while wielding a polearm, enemies in reach provoke OA. The second part of polearm master doesn't say that they have to use the polearm at all.

@@nickschott7556 Polearm Master: You gain the following benefits: When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals bludgeoning damage. While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.

@@Meebhver yeah you quoted the feat? Lol don't know what you're getting at though?

@@nickschott7556 The final line could be read as the OA needing to be made, with the mentioned weapon, it is ambiguous.

@@NichtcrawlerX The intent is pretty clear.

You were truly “first”

High levels? You could do this as a human at level 4.

​@@kertisjones2092Sentinel, Polearm Master, and War Caster at level 4? Yknow, I don't think that's how that works

​@@kertisjones2092level 8 would be the earliest for a pure hexblade warlock, if they just dip Hexblade two levels for invocations and rest fighter for extra fears it's also at level 8 ( 2 hexblade/6 fighter) so no it can be at level 4 (initial feat for variant human/custom race, feats at level 4 and 8 for pure warlock or at level 4 and 6 if fighter involved either way character level is 8)

@@iwatchanime0 This is just a magical version of the sentinel + polearm master bastard combo. Using a weapon with reach can completely shut down any monster that doesn’t have reach. Jumping up to 8th level to combo it with warcaster and repelling blast makes it even more ridiculous, yes, but it’s still completely broken with just the two feats.

Hmm, that's interesting, I always treated the cantrip AS an opportunity attack. That's a very reasonable ruling of yours though, which would have at least made it theoretically possible for the Clay Golem to get close range

you might be able to still do some cheese with the invocation that slows as well!

No, Warcaster says you can make a spell attack rather than opportunity attack, which the spell must have a casting time of 1 acrion and must only target that creature. So you can choose a cantrip or a leveled spell.

Replace warlock with fighter, give em a lucerne hammer (has access to bludgeoning), get crusher feat to knock them back 5 feat, profit?

​@@Comrade2261this is actually the other thing that stops this from working except at level 4 specifically. You need to be at least level 4 to have both feats, but level 5 onwards means you can't use Eldritch Blast with war caster, since it can target multiple creatures.

You would "fix" a 1v1 match by making it a 1v2... the player still wins by walking out and not coming back.

Oh, good. I wasn't alone in recognizing the clips.

This is when the gods gave divine knowledge to the emperor allowing him to see the TRUE machinations at work in the warlocks mind and body. Quickly breaking this 'unbreackable' defense.

​​​@@stock_movie1875 The emperor gasped in horror at his sudden realisation. This gift of omniscience from User @stock_movie1875 gave him EVERYTHING he could have wanted in terms of knowledge about his world and more... No... Too much. For with his understanding of the mechanics of the system that drives his world came the realisation that he was nothing more than a copy of a character in a fictional story. He wasn't even the original Emperor, no... Just a copy, brought up in a youtube comment discussion of a retelling through a video. He wasn't real, neither was the warlock, nor the golem... In fact, given he only existed as a grouping of letters and numbers on paper, he was closer to a golem than human... No, a human, he would never be. The emperor's eyes bulged in his head as the warlock down below absent mindedly danced like a character out of Fortnite... Yes, the emperor knew what this 'Fortnite' was too... He just knew. His sanity freying as the warlock danced in a squat, his finger and his thumb in the shape of an L on his forehead, blissfully ignorant. "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO ME?!?" "YES, YOU, AT STOCK UNDERSCORE MOVIE EIGHTEEN SEVENTY FIVE, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?"

As a 3.5e player, where Warlocks are basically walking nukes, I learned that lesson when I stopped being the blaster and started getting blasted.

The exact wording in the Feat's entry is "The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature". A multitarget spell like Eldritch Blast should still be eligable as long as all of the attacks are directed at the one target*. Some people may say that this interpretation makes the Feat too strong; other people may say that this interpretation makes that part of the Feat actually worth using. *(Assuming there hasn't been a recent errata or Sage Advice that says otherwise.)

@@arcticbanana66 I could also see the argument being made in favor of allowing this combo that under the Target field on the Eldritch Blast's description, it only says "A target within range" as opposed to a spell like Scorching Ray which says "Targets (one or several) within range." While I wouldn't agree with the ruling, I could see how the language on the feat and the spell could synergize.

Technically you can use Eldritch Blast since it only has to target one creature, it does not say it must only be ABLE to target one creature, so as long as all blasts are targeted at the triggering creature, that works. But Warcaster has another issue that makes this combo impossible: It says you can cast a spell INSTEAD of taking your attack of opportunity, meaning the spell itself is not an attack of opportunity and thus doesn't trigger Sentinel.

Is this supposed to be satire? If so, then it makes no sense

@@adventurer3288 Make an insight check 🤔

I would say min-maxing is fine, the issue is when people powergame Edit: min-maxing as making your character as strong as possible within rules, as opposed to powergaming which tends to require bending or outright misinterpreting rules, as in this short, or else an immense amount of shenanigans

@@STONKS0897 Min-maxing has a very high correlation with awful roleplay. I have actually played with a guy who roleplays min-maxed characters well (for example he had a wood elf ranger with about 3 CHA once who simply doesn't understand how to behave in any village or town and shits on the street and walks around wearing almost nothing) but it is not the norm.

@@CrizzyEyes yeah one of my players is an 8 intelligence and charisma elf for the sake of min maxxing but he doesn't play it well at all, it's really annoying because he clearly took it just to be good

It doesn't work though. Warcaster allows the player to cast a spell *instead* or making an opportunity attack. No opportunity attack means Sentinel doesn't trigger, which breaks the combo

@@yeasstt @Bob Jonquet i mean, if we ignore the text in the rulebook anything can be anything we want ... but rules as written: Warcaster:"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 target only that creature." Sentinel:"When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the creature's speed becomes 0 for the rest of the turn." Therefore no opportunity attack takes place (it is replaced with casting a spell) and so the movement penalty from sentinel does not apply.

AH, the Hasbro Classic.

It does. RAJCT is not a representation of RAW nor RAI. If the intent was to not make it work, it would have said attack of opportunity. If there was a wording issue, people wouldnt have come up with the combo in the first place (such as the claim that sentinel still slows despite warcaster swapping out the AoO for the cast, not lets you cast as AoO).

Jeremy Crawford has some shit takes in tweets. Nothing in the actual rules stops it from working. Warlcaster lets you swap in a spell in place of an opportunity attack. Full stop. Doesn't matter where or why you got that opportunity attack, if you have warcaster you can choose to cast a spell instead.

+1 to this answer. Those going with RAW and saying Sentinel doesn't trigger may be more technically right, but realistically the spirit of Polearm Master is it triggers when holding specific weapons and should result in an opportunity attack with those weapons. This is the sort of thing the DM has the authority to rule on and responsibility to reign in under normal circumstances. That said, if the group agreed they wanted a game where the players can seek out exploits in the RAW, then nice, but Sentinel would not trigger as noted by others.

@paderball To reach your conclusion you have to ignore the spirit of the feat Warcaster. The purpose of which allows you to opportunity attack, so to speak, with spells instead of weapons. If you feel comfortable completely ignoring both the RAW and RAI of the warcaster feat, then go ahead and homebrew it at your table.

@@remyb6854 I'm not ignoring the spirit of War Caster. I'm essentially claiming it takes ignoring the spirit of Polearm Master to make this scenario work. It only works with certain weapons equipped and should clearly state (and probably intended for) the opportunity attack with the weapon in question. Similarly, the opportunity attack is triggered by monster movement against you with a poelarm and War Caster triggers on monster movement. It's not only monster movement that triggered it. Realistically, it's the PC having and using the polearm while the monster approaches (though the rules don't specify, it's silly to say you're just idly standing with polearm in hand). To say the PC is using the polearm in a way to give the benefit but is replacing that part of the reaction with another reaction is taking away the prerequisite. In simpler words, you're trying to do two things at once. War Caster lets you do one particular thing for normal op attacks, but that doesn't mean you get to do it while also doing something else. Yes, I can see a DM ruling you're so good at casting and polearms to do both, but I think it's perfectly reasonable and closer to the intent to say they are separate. Each feat's strength is intended to hold its own weight without allowing this very specific pairing (i.e. if it required this whole setup to make them good, then they'd be trash in all but very niche cases), so you can't really argue it's somehow critically nerfing War Caster to bar it.

Also numbers can overwhelmed. I played a similar build.

Fireball? You mean all beam of a Scorching Ray, which does more damage to a single target.

Clay golem got an int of 3. Problem solving ain't their strong suit.

@@joshuahitchins1897 But when most things get frustrated that's not intelligence that's just throwing stuff at what is frustrating you.

​@@joshuahitchins1897 3 INT is definitely high enough for extremely basic tool usage based on how INT is determined for animals and sapients. Actually, the INT scores are completely nonsensical anyway. Ravens have 2 INT, for example, whereas canines typically have 3. A raven should be at least as smart as a dog if not moreso.

Probably not in the case of the golem. D&D golems are basically like robots. Really stupid, really simple programming. Even if the DM rules it could think of throwing stuff, he said it was an arena match, so if they're fighting in a typical gladiatorial arena, there's just sand. Then even if it found a rock, that would be an unproficient attack with an improvised weapon doing what? 1d4 damage? so not very scary at all and still gets destroyed by eldritch blast spamming.

That's just pole arm master and sentinel. War caster doesn't chain of sentinel nor does it trigger sentinel. So keep that in mind.

Warcaster still works with Eldritch Blast past level 5 . Unlike Twinned Spell that forbids spells with multiple targets, Warcaster only restricts who a PC can target. "...must target only that creature" means you can still target that creature multiple times. Happy Blasting!

Personally i would say that polearm master should only work when using your polearm, it just doesn't feel right to have an ability say you can stab anybody for walking too close to you, only to sub it out for a different type of attack. But i doubt that is RAW, so it whatever precident the table sets for itself, ideally by talking this sort of combo over with your DM first. (The understanding that is sucks to have your cool ideas shut down should apply to both the DM and the Players, the DM wants [needs] to have fun too.)

@@jasonreed7522 RAW, Warcaster says you can cast a spell INSTEAD of taking an attack of opportunity. So while you can use Warcaster off of Polearm Master, the Eldritch Blast would not be an attack of opportunity and thus not trigger Sentinel. Though the initial point is indeed invalid, warcaster says that the spell can only target one opponent, it does not say that the spell must be able to only target one target, so as long as all blasts from Eldritch Blast are aimed at the triggering opponent, that would be a valid choice.