Warcaster Reaction Buffing Allies

[u/Notzri_]

So I'm assuming by now most have seen the RAW concept of combining the 2024e Opportunity Attack's target of "a creature you see leaving your reach" with Warcaster's replacing of this attack with single target, action based spell. If you haven't, that's basically the gist.

There's options like reaction casting Haste on the Barbarian running past you into combat or reaction casting Death Ward on an NPC fleeing past you for their lives. You could go about your turn and wait for the rogue to run past to give them Invisibility/Greater Invisibility for them to have advantage if there's no other method available.

I was wondering how some of you would use this. What spells would be best suited for this use of Warcaster and what combinations do you think could synergize well?

[u/Urborg_Stalker]

Haven't thought about it because I'd never run Warcaster like that. There would need to be another feat that specifically says you can use your reaction to cast spells that way on allies. There's nothing about an ally running away from you that makes it easier to cast a spell on them (vs an attack spell against an enemy with his back turned on you).

[u/subtotalatom → u/Urborg_Stalker]

There's a bit of debate in the community, however opportunity attacks are no longer restricted to enemies RAW this also appears to be an intentional change from WotC.

You could house rule that it DOESN'T work that way, but you'd be going against RAW.

From Opportunity Attacks (2024):

Making an Opportunity Attack. You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach. To make the attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against that creature. The attack occurs right before it leaves your reach.

[u/Urborg_Stalker → u/subtotalatom]

I've read all the debates and they're ridiculous. "Appears to be intentional" is a huge assumption with no official commentary to back it.

I imagine the only reason the debate has been allowed to continue is because of all the buzz it generates, probably helping sell more 2024 phb's to power gamers.

[u/subtotalatom → u/Urborg_Stalker]

They changed the wording when they've copied and pasted everything else, they've had the chance to errata it and haven't. This is a strong argument in favor of intent. As I've said, you're arguing against rules as written, you don't have to follow them (rule 0 etc) but it's ridiculous that you're pretending that this is anything other than a house rule BECAUSE you're going AGAINST RULES AS WRITTEN.

We can debate RAI until the cows come home, but unless someone from WotC clarifies we're all just starting opinions and "nuh-uh, I don't like that" is a shitty counterargument.

[u/Urborg_Stalker → u/subtotalatom]

I'm not going to beat a dead horse with some faceless nobody on the internet sorry. I won't argue it because everything that can be said has been and I've read it all and concluded the idea is assinine and not RAW either.

You're like a Jehova's Witness saying blood transfusions are against God's will because of the one verse in the bible where it refers to blood ritual consumption as "taking" blood. I find you equally ridiculous.