no 5' step

[khachaturian]

can you let me know if i'm reading this correctly.

casting a spell or firing a ranged weapon does not trigger an attack of opportunity, but your attack rolls have disadvantage if you are threatened?

[hymer]

can you let me know if i'm reading this correctly.

casting a spell or firing a ranged weapon does not trigger an attack of opportunity, but your attack rolls have disadvantage if you are threatened?

Threatened isn't a game term in 5th, but yes.

Edit: Wait, only ranged attack rolls are at disadvantage.

[khachaturian]

and the only thing that triggers attacks of opportunity is moving out of a threatened square. so no AoO for getting up from prone position, drinking a potion, etc.?

[Inevitability]

and the only thing that triggers attacks of opportunity is moving out of a threatened square. so no AoO for getting up from prone position, drinking a potion, etc.?

Nope. Unless things specifically say they trigger an AoO, they don't. 5e is even simpler than 4e when it's about AoO's.

[hymer]

and the only thing that triggers attacks of opportunity is moving out of a threatened square. so no AoO for getting up from prone position, drinking a potion, etc.?

The only general rule on provoking Opportunity Attacks as 5th edition calls them is, as you say, leaving reach.
There are specific cases that change this, like the Mageslayer feat which means casting also provokes, or Polearm Master which means stepping into reach also provokes.

Edit: Shadowmonked.

[Person_Man]

and the only thing that triggers attacks of opportunity is moving out of a threatened square. so no AoO for getting up from prone position, drinking a potion, etc.?

Squares/spaces don't exist in 5E. You only provoke an opportunity attack when you move outside of an enemy's reach, which is typically 5 feet. Nothing else provokes without a specific Feat.

[Breltar]

Threatened isn't a game term in 5th, but yes.

Edit: Wait, only ranged attack rolls are at disadvantage.

Spells that need an attack roll have disadvantage if an enemy is within 5 feet of the caster.

[DCraw]

Spells that need an attack roll have disadvantage if an enemy is within 5 feet of the caster.

Not necessarily. Only spells that need a ranged attack roll will have disadvantage. This covers most spells with attack rolls, but there are exceptions. Shocking Grasp, for instance, requires a melee attack roll, which does not trigger disadvantage.

[Demonic Spoon]

there is a feat (Mage Slayer) which lets you get a free whack at mages casting spells in front of you.

[hawklost]

there is a feat (Mage Slayer) which lets you get a free whack at mages casting spells in front of you.

True, at which point the mage has a choice between taking the whack while casting a spell or backing out of range. Or possibly cast anyways because the person used his Reaction already.

[TomPliss]

Not necessarily. Only spells that need a ranged attack roll will have disadvantage.
You will note that Thorn Whip, the Druid spell, is a melee attack spell with a reach of 30 feet. I think it's the longest one (but I've only read low level spells).

[HorridElemental]

Quick houserule I threw at my party (that they liked) is that if you cast a spell within reach of an enemy then it gives advantage to the target's save.

Now yeah you may be a wizard with 18-22 AC but casting spells within reach sucks. Still useful to have high AC but wading into combat still sucks for you.

[hawklost]

Quick houserule I threw at my party (that they liked) is that if you cast a spell within reach of an enemy then it gives advantage to the target's save.

Now yeah you may be a wizard with 18-22 AC but casting spells within reach sucks. Still useful to have high AC but wading into combat still sucks for you.

Doesn't that step on the toes of the Mage Slayer Feat? What did you give that feat instead?

EDIT: And what about touch spells like Shocking Grasp?

[ambartanen]

Quick houserule I threw at my party (that they liked) is that if you cast a spell within reach of an enemy then it gives advantage to the target's save.

I take it you really dislike all the melee range offensive spells of which there are many.

[HorridElemental]

I take it you really dislike all the melee range offensive spells of which there are many.

Nah, don't hate them, I forgot to mention that touch (melee spells) don't apply to this ruling.

This goes a long way in helping the bad math saving throw system but isn't a fix. It does make things consistent and fair. Why should one caster be penalized for using firebolt next to an enemy when the other caster isn't penalized for casting poison spray? Shouldn't they both be distracted and not on their A game?

The only two things, without feats and while within reach of an enemy, that doesn't give advantage/disadvantage is melee weapon and spell attacks. Any ranged weapon or spell attack imposes disadvantage on you or advantage on the target depending on who rolls the d20.

[Snails]

Why should one caster be penalized for using firebolt next to an enemy when the other caster isn't penalized for casting poison spray? Shouldn't they both be distracted and not on their A game?

Because some spells were specifically "engineered" to be easy to cast effectively while dodging sword jabs. It is not logically necessary for any spell to have this useful property -- certainly you do not have to put any such spells on your Wizard's list of prepped spells for the day. Weirdly enough, some Wizards thought making minor concessions to the effectiveness of the spell were worth gaining this.

[HorridElemental]

Because some spells were specifically "engineered" to be easy to cast effectively while dodging sword jabs. It is not logically necessary for any spell to have this useful property -- certainly you do not have to put any such spells on your Wizard's list of prepped spells for the day. Weirdly enough, some Wizards thought making minor concessions to the effectiveness of the spell were worth gaining this.

Funny enough, these spells that you say are engineered differently are actually not in all practical overview or use.

From a mechanical standpoint of the wizard casting they go through the same set up and delivery with the minor exception of who rolls the d20. We all also know that both systems are sisters and use the same math (d20+mod versus dc).

A caster should be punished equally. Don't want the target to gain advantage? Get out of harms way first or cast a melee spell.

Take Burning Hands for instance and let's apply it to real life. I have a flame thrower and I'm trying to hit an enemy soldier (who has my base's coordinate's memorized) with it. If one of his allies is distracting me I may not launch my AoE exactly where I want it to go and the target may dodge (Dex save) and avoid being directly hit and only get partially burned.

Because of the ally, my enemy had advantage on the saving throw. I'm not making an attack roll (though you could set it up that way) but yet I'm punished just the same ad if I was.

Consistency is a beautiful thing.

[Snails]

A caster should be punished equally. Don't want the target to gain advantage? Get out of harms way first or cast a melee spell.

That is a perfectly reasonable idea, but the designers chose otherwise. Instead of having only 1 kind of spell that does not result in negative consequences for casting in melee, they chose to have 2. I do not see that either design choice would be obviously superior to the other.

I do not know 5e spells well enough to make any definitive claims, but my guess is the designers' reasoning was that they wanted spellcasters to have the fun of some AoEs even while in the midst of a brawl; so they made good spells that were of short enough range that to use them effectively, the spellcasters would be enticed to get close enough to risk getting caught within the brawl. The idea is promote fun and tactical choices, rather than making hanging way back too obviously attractive.