Reach Weapons

[Vowtz]

Lets say I am wielding a reach weapon, like a Halberd, if an enemy that is by my side moves one square away from me (to a distance of 10 feet), do I get an attack of opportunity?


If someone who is also wielding a reach weapon comes to a distance of 10 feet, attack me, and moves away, do I get an attack of opportunity?


If I have the Polearm Master feat, and an enemy that is 10 feet away comes closer, do I get an attack of opportunity?


If I have the Polearm Master feat and someone with a reach weapon comes to attack me at a 10 feet distance, do I get an attack of opportunity?

[Soras Teva Gee]

That's the only trigger provided normally from Basic Rules pg 74: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."

So going by this with a Reach weapon would not trigger if they are only moving from 5' to 10' because they are still within your reach. Useful for dancing with a ranged weapon to nullify disadvantage because that is only 5'.

Polearm Master provides only (iirc) for a second "enters your reach" trigger so you would only get it from 15' to 10' not 10' to 5' unless you are using a quarterstaff when you get it at 10' to 5' but only there because its not a Reach property weapon.

(And you only get one of these a turn because you only have 1 reaction so even if you did get the those intermediate ranges you wouldn't get two attacks or anything anyways)

[Shadow]

It's done this way because the game was designed in a theater of the mind style of play intended.
The game becomes slower, much less fluid, and more tactical when played with a hex or grid.
But it also becomes easier for some players to visualize. You have to decide which of those groups you are in. In my group, we usually only grid play boss fights (and have been doing it that way for years).

[Vowtz]

That's the only trigger provided normally from Basic Rules pg 74: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."

So going by this with a Reach weapon would not trigger if they are only moving from 5' to 10' because they are still within your reach. Useful for dancing with a ranged weapon to nullify disadvantage because that is only 5'.

Polearm Master provides only (iirc) for a second "enters your reach" trigger so you would only get it from 15' to 10' not 10' to 5' unless you are using a quarterstaff when you get it at 10' to 5' but only there because its not a Reach property weapon.

(And you only get one of these a turn because you only have 1 reaction so even if you did get the those intermediate ranges you wouldn't get two attacks or anything anyways)

I agree. My interpretation is just like yours!

But some people say that, by raw, you only have 10 feet in reach when you attack, once your attack is over, your reach becomes 5 feet until you attack again.

I'm still confused.

[BW022]

But some people say that, by raw, you only have 10 feet in reach when you attack, once your attack is over, your reach becomes 5 feet until you attack again.
I'm still confused.

There is nothing in the PHB which says that a character with reach can only attack 10' away. There are two cases when it says otherwise...

(1) The lance specifically gives a disadvantage to attack roles when the target is 5' away.
(2) The polearm master feat specifically gives you an attack when they enter your reach.

[TheOOB]

But some people say that, by raw, you only have 10 feet in reach when you attack, once your attack is over, your reach becomes 5 feet until you attack again.

If you can attack within 10ft, your reach is 10ft, as a reach is quite literally the range at which you can attack.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I agree. My interpretation is just like yours!

But some people say that, by raw, you only have 10 feet in reach when you attack, once your attack is over, your reach becomes 5 feet until you attack again.

I'm still confused.

Ahh I see:

"Reach.This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." -Weapon Properties

However while it could perhaps be worded better for literalist idiots this wouldn't allow Reach to work at all nevermind Opportunity Attacks because you'd have to attack a creature in your normal reach, get a +5' reach, but it doesn't do anything because hurr-hurr you already attacked your target and reach is now irrelevant. Of course you can infinitely extend your reach (since it adds to it without expiration) every time you attack, so make some practice attacks for a few hours and you can now make melee attacks against the moon or whatever with any weapon you please.

So instead I will substitute its rather more clear and obvious meaning that when using a Reach weapon you have +5' reach remembering these are "game rules" not "laws of physics" or "computer code" and are simply not subject to such nonsense by their nature.

[TheOOB]

Ahh I see:

"Reach.This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." -Weapon Properties

However while it could perhaps be worded better for literalist idiots this wouldn't allow Reach to work at all nevermind Opportunity Attacks because you'd have to attack a creature in your normal reach, get a +5' reach, but it doesn't do anything because hurr-hurr you already attacked your target and reach is now irrelevant. Of course you can infinitely extend your reach (since it adds to it without expiration) every time you attack, so make some practice attacks for a few hours and you can now make melee attacks against the moon or whatever with any weapon you please.

So instead I will substitute its rather more clear and obvious meaning that when using a Reach weapon you have +5' reach remembering these are "game rules" not "laws of physics" or "computer code" and are simply not subject to such nonsense by their nature.

I both agree and disagree with you. Game rules for RPG's are supposed to be written kind of like a legal document, that is they are supposed to use very specific language in order to make sure there is one and only one proper interpretation of the rules. This obviously does not always end up being the case, but pedantically referring to people as "literalists" because they are trying to figure out or follow the exact rules as written is neither helpful nor correct.

Now the line for reach weapons isn't the best written line in the world, it was obviously written to avoid having to reference other pages on reach so a new player could figure out it's effects easily upon first glance. By simply making an identical statement another way, it makes it more clear: When attacking, you have +5ft Reach. This means then for the purposes of an attack, you have a longer reach then you normally otherwise would have. An attack of opportunity is an attack(the book is very careful to use the term "attack action" when referring to the action and "attack" or "attack roll" when referring to any type of attack), and thus you would have a 10ft range on it, which means you have a 10ft reach.

[Shadow]

Game rules for RPG's are supposed to be written kind of like a legal document, that is they are supposed to use very specific language in order to make sure there is one and only one proper interpretation of the rules.

This is the problem. You are wrong, but you don't know that you're wrong because this is what you're used to, but it isn't true for 5e.
I'll link this one more time today, so you can see.
Mike Mearls, Lead Designer for the game, disagrees with you. And since he's LD for the game, I'm going to listen to him on the matter.
The problem is that people are used to playig 3.x and 4e, where every concievable situation had rules associated with it.
This system for 5e works more like 1e and 2e worked, by applying judicious amounts of DM fiat.
The rules are intentionally vague for a lot of the game, because they want DMs to rule as common sense and situations demand.

Watch this video if you don't believe me. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls)

RAW should not be thrown around any longer like it was in previous editions. RAI is what matters for this game.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Also as far as a legal document comparison... I'm laughing myself silly because I chose my examples specifically because computer code and laws of physics, are very different then the law. In fact I deleted a comment on the law but since you bring it up

The law (at least here in the USA) runneth over with vagaries, interpretations, and requires oversight by a DMing system known as the courts under constant assault by the original munchkins looking for advantages. For a simple example the 1st Amendment doesn't let you make threats or shout "fire!" in a crowded theater even though nothing says it. The actual core of US law... is the Common Law the collection of decisions reaching back to medieval England and predating anything like a unified rulebook. Which the USA still does not actually have.

Its completely unlike say... gravity. Which has no interpretation, you literally cannot defy it. And for centuries kept humanity on the ground until some damn munchkin abused the rules on the behavior of gas to constant defy gravity by moving through air. And it worked because the DM took a hands off approach and let the laws of physics stand as they are. Now that terrible horrible exploit, is integral to travel and commerce worldwide.

Gravity 2E needs to patch that.

[Theodoxus]

This is the problem. You are wrong, but you don't know that you're wrong because this is what you're used to, but it isn't true for 5e.
I'll link this one more time today, so you can see.
Mike Mearls, Lead Designer for the game, disagrees with you. And since he's LD for the game, I'm going to listen to him on the matter.
The problem is that people are used to playig 3.x and 4e, where every concievable situation had rules associated with it.
This system for 5e works more like 1e and 2e worked, by applying judicious amounts of DM fiat.
The rules are intentionally vague for a lot of the game, because they want DMs to rule as common sense and situations demand.

Watch this video if you don't believe me. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-escapist-on-the-road/9672-Interview-with-Dungeons-and-Dragons-Lead-Designer-Mike-Mearls)

RAW should not be thrown around any longer like it was in previous editions. RAI is what matters for this game.

Shadow, I've finally pinpointed the irritation I have reading your posts. While you make some excellent points, and some weird assertions you won't let go - you're extremely acerbic in your posts. "You are wrong, but your don't know that you're wrong" is the epitome of rude behavior, one simply doesn't do that on a polite board. TheOOB certainly doesn't deserve that kind of derision.

Maybe you're not socially conditioned in an anonymous forum. Maybe you have Asperger's and just can't see how your words are hurtful. Maybe your online persona is an ass. I don't know - but I feel I'm going to have to ignore your posts, as relevant as they might be, because you carry an aura of superiority that you haven't earned.

[Vowtz]

Ahh I see:

"Reach.This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." -Weapon Properties

However while it could perhaps be worded better for literalist idiots this wouldn't allow Reach to work at all nevermind Opportunity Attacks because you'd have to attack a creature in your normal reach, get a +5' reach, but it doesn't do anything because hurr-hurr you already attacked your target and reach is now irrelevant. Of course you can infinitely extend your reach (since it adds to it without expiration) every time you attack, so make some practice attacks for a few hours and you can now make melee attacks against the moon or whatever with any weapon you please.

So instead I will substitute its rather more clear and obvious meaning that when using a Reach weapon you have +5' reach remembering these are "game rules" not "laws of physics" or "computer code" and are simply not subject to such nonsense by their nature.
Yes, even for legal documents there are more than one type of interpretation, literal reading is just one of them, the study of these many options is called hermeneutics.

It's not that literal interpretation is wrong or stupid, it's just not adequate for all situations...

Like my Polearm Master + Sentinel character!


It feels wrong for two reasons:

1. you do not gain reach with reach weapons for AoO

2. Polearm master says "you keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons"

Well, if you interpret reach only on your turn, you do not keep your enemy at bay if he has THE SAME WEAPON as you!

[TheOOB]

No one plays by RAW, everyone improvises, every house rules, and everyone does what is necessary to have fun. D&D 5e is much less "crunchy" than 3e (that is there are less strict rules about every little thing), though it still is incredibly crunchy when compared to other RPGs.

RAW, despite never being 100% used by anyone, is still incredibly important. First and foremost, it is the only common bond different groups of players have. My game may not play the same as your game, but they both have the same source, the RAW, and if a player comes to your group who has played in other groups, you explain to them how your game differs from RAW. Further, RAW is how your learn the game, and any changes to RAW should be done with an understand of what the RAW rule is, why it is there, and how if affects the game, thus getting a proper clear cut rule is important. A game that has lose vague rules isn't doing it's job, a vague rule isn't a rule. While it is true Mike Mearls wants D&D 5e to be flexible, I don't think it's fair to assume that they he or the rest of the design team intentionally put bits in the book that would cause different people to have different understandings of how the game works thus causing arguments and rushed DM ruling during play.

While I agree there can be other interpretations to how the Reach keyword in 5e works, the one I stated is a valid interpretation, and considering what we know, it is the most likely intended interpretation(WotC obvious did not intend the ability to not work at all, and considering previous editions and the wording of related abilities we can assume they ment it to work for AoO's as well).

[Vowtz]

No one plays by RAW, everyone improvises, every house rules, and everyone does what is necessary to have fun. D&D 5e is much less "crunchy" than 3e (that is there are less strict rules about every little thing), though it still is incredibly crunchy when compared to other RPGs.

RAW, despite never being 100% used by anyone, is still incredibly important. First and foremost, it is the only common bond different groups of players have. My game may not play the same as your game, but they both have the same source, the RAW, and if a player comes to your group who has played in other groups, you explain to them how your game differs from RAW. Further, RAW is how your learn the game, and any changes to RAW should be done with an understand of what the RAW rule is, why it is there, and how if affects the game, thus getting a proper clear cut rule is important. A game that has lose vague rules isn't doing it's job, a vague rule isn't a rule. While it is true Mike Mearls wants D&D 5e to be flexible, I don't think it's fair to assume that they he or the rest of the design team intentionally put bits in the book that would cause different people to have different understandings of how the game works thus causing arguments and rushed DM ruling during play.

While I agree there can be other interpretations to how the Reach keyword in 5e works, the one I stated is a valid interpretation, and considering what we know, it is the most likely intended interpretation(WotC obvious did not intend the ability to not work at all, and considering previous editions and the wording of related abilities we can assume they ment it to work for AoO's as well).
I agree, when raw is poorly written, everyone suffer.

It came to my knowledge today that Mike Meyers (the lead d&d guy, I forgot his real name) and ECrowford(his minion) both tweeted on this, the answer is...

You gain reach for AoO too, it is not just on your turn.

It is so confusing that ECrawford said one interpretation on one tweet, then changed to the other one later(maybe to align with Meyers).

[TheOOB]

I agree, when raw is poorly written, everyone suffer.

It came to my knowledge today that Mike Meyers (the lead d&d guy, I forgot his real name) and ECrowford(his minion) both tweeted on this, the answer is...

You gain reach for AoO too, it is not just on your turn.

It is so confusing that ECrawford said one interpretation on one tweet, then changed to the other one later(maybe to align with Meyers).

For the record, it's Mike Mearls, Michael Myers is the killer from the Halloween movies :)

[Oscredwin]

For the record, it's Mike Mearls, Michael Myers is the killer from the Halloween movies :)

Michael Myers may be the killer from the halloween movies, but he said Mike Myers which is the voice of Shrek and the actor who played Austin Powers.

[TheOOB]

Michael Myers may be the killer from the halloween movies, but he said Mike Myers which is the voice of Shrek and the actor who played Austin Powers.

Mea Culpa. I stand corrected.