0
\$\begingroup\$

I recently requested a review of a homebrew War Priest feature replacement that contained major mechanical flaws (it could not be used at 1st level).

Below is revised wording that is intended to be useful at all levels:

When you cast a spell on your turn by expending a spell slot, you may instead have the spell assume the level below the slot's (if valid) and use your reaction to make one weapon attack against a creature that was a target of the spell.

Alternatively, when you cast a cantrip on your turn, you may choose to expend a spell slot and use your reaction to make one weapon attack against a creature that was a target of the cantrip.

My discussion in the last post is still relevant. Do you think there are mechanical or balance issues to this homebrew feature?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

1
\$\begingroup\$

I'll address this in parts. In terms of phrasing, you're a bit off from something I'd expect to see in officially published material. Try something like this:

When you cast a spell that targets one or more creatures using a spell slot of a higher level, you may use your reaction to make one weapon attack against a creature that was a target of the spell. If you do, you cast the spell at one level lower than the expended slot.

That said, this is really weird. I'm not aware of any abilities (non-UA, anyway) that let you spend your reaction proactively like this. Much more common would be using a bonus action, a la Shield Master. But you don't want to use the bonus action, so we need to look for a different example. How 'bout College of Swords bard flourishes? That'd change the wording to something like this.

Whenever you cast a spell on your turn that targets one or more creatures using a spell slot, you may make one weapon attack against a target of the spell as part of that action. If you do, cast the spell one level lower than the expended slot, and you can't take reactions until the start of your next turn. A spell's level must be lower than the level of the expended slot in order to make use of this ability.

Still have the penalty, but without all the janky weirdness involved with using a reaction proactively. (This way is admittedly slightly better, since one could conceivably use their reaction and then make use of this ability, but that's an extreme case I don't think often enough to be worth extra verbiage.

And then the second half becomes again (no need for alternatively. This isn't an alternative -- it's a completely different situation):

Whenever you cast a cantrip targeting one creature, you can expend one spell slot to make a weapon attack against the target of that spell. If you do, you can't take reactions until the start of your next turn.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Other than wording do you see any mechanical or balance issues with this change? \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Commented Mar 20, 2020 at 9:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri - not really -- it's basically a different take on Divine Smite, but slightly worse damage-wise. Makes the war priest a little better at nova-ing if your spell is a damaging one -- but the reduction in spell level probably causes less damage than the attack (especially if it misses). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 20, 2020 at 12:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's interesting that you bring up Blade Flourishes, since I based the reaction usage on Mobile Flourish. The relevant wording I see on D&D Beyond is: "Whenever you take the Attack action on your turn... if a weapon attack that you make as part of this action hits a creature, you can use [Mobile Flourish to]... push the target up to 5 feet away from you... You can then immediately use your reaction to move up to your walking speed to an unoccupied space within 5 feet of the target." \$\endgroup\$
    – mjmartis
    Commented Mar 20, 2020 at 14:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ An issue with the "cannot use reactions" wording is that a cleric could make two weapon attacks with this feature by casting e.g. a cantrip with their action and a spell with their bonus action. Whether or not that is acceptable is a balance question. \$\endgroup\$
    – mjmartis
    Commented Mar 20, 2020 at 15:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .