Threat Range, Reach, and Houserule

[Easy_Lee]

With D&D 5e being as dependent as it is on DM rulings, it's very hard to come up with optimized builds. Any build you can think of is subject to at least a few rulings that could potentially destroy it. With that in mind, I think we should come up with some widely accepted houserules on which the majority of us can agree. This will help us when designing builds.

For this post, I'm hoping to get reach problems out of the way. Here are the relevant passages:

Reach - "this weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it" - PHB 147
Opportunity Attacks - "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach" - PHB 195
Feat: Mage Slayer - "When a creature within 5 feet of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a weapon attack against that creature...you have advantage on saving throws against spells cast by creatures within 5 feet of you" - PHB 168
Feat: Polearm Master - "While you are wielding a...creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach" - PHB 168
Feat: Sentinel - "Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks even if they take the disengage action before leaving your reach...When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you...reaction to make a melee weapon attack" - PHB 169-170

There's so much jumbled wording when it comes to reach, that it produces a lot of RAW BS:

Stretch Armstrong - Your reach increases by 5' (permanently) every time you make an attack with a reach weapon...that's obviously not intended.
No Reach When Not Attacking - Your reach is still 5' when wielding a reach weapon as per RAW; it only increases when you attack. Again, that's obviously not RAI. If it was, polearm master wouldn't even work with poles since creatures would only provoke AOO when entering your 5' reach.
No Reach Opportunity Attacks - You only ever provoke AOO when moving from 5' away to more than 5', because polearm wielders only have increased reach after they've decided to attack, not just by holding the weapon. That means any AOO with a lance is always at disadvantage, due to lances having disadvantage on attacking targets within 5'.
No Pole-Wielding Sentinels - Sentinel does not work with pole weapons. Creatures don't leave your reach until they're more than 10' away, but they don't provoke AOO while disengaging unless they're within 5' and leaving your reach as per the wording of Sentinel. You can't use your reaction to attack a target within 10' that's attacking your ally, even though you can reach them, because Sentinel is worded to say 5'.
No Reach Mage Slayers - Mage slayer completely breaks with reach weapons, since the enterprising mage needs merely back up to 10' (doesn't provoke AOO, didn't leave your reach if you houserule that polearms do increase your reach for AOO). From there, he can then cast spells at you without provoking AOO or giving you advantage on saving throws due to the wording of Mage Slayer. None of its effects work at all with a polearm, and depending on rulings the feat can be entirely negated.
Mage Slayer and Sentinel Through Walls - Due to the wording, both of these feats work through walls or any other barrier between you and your target, so long as the target is within 5'. That means a target can provoke opportunity attacks from you even though you can't reach them. You can have advantage on saves against spells you didn't even see cast because you're within 5' of the mage.

It's clear most of this stuff is supposed to work off of reach, not a specific distance. The above feats depend heavily on making weapon attacks against targets, meaning you should benefit from them when you're able to hit the target.

Sentinel is about hitting targets who try to run away or attack someone else while close enough for you to hit them.
Mage slayer is about slapping casters around when they're trying to cast, messing them up or in the very least making it hard for them to affect you with the spell.
Polearm master is actually written correctly, unlike the others, since it uses the word "reach" rather than "5 feet".

For these reasons, I propose the following houserule to be widely adopted:
Rule: reach weapons increase your reach by 5 feet while wielding the weapon. Opportunity attacks as well as Mage Slayer, Polearm Master, Sentinel and similar feats all work off of reach, not specific distances.

This is the simplest and most intuitive interpretation of the rules. This will speed up table sessions involving reach weapons, as no one will try to rules-lawyer someone else out of a feature. No player will tell the DM he doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity for moving within 10' of the skeletal horseman wielding a lance. No DM will tell a player that the enemy wizard just stepped 5' away, not provoking an attack due to reach, but can now cast on him in spite of mage slayer because he's no longer within 5'. And increases or decreases in size can be easily handled just by keeping track of reach.

[Izha]

Rule: reach weapons increase your reach by 5 feet while wielding the weapon. Opportunity attacks as well as Mage Slayer, Polearm Master, Sentinel and similar feats all work off of reach, not specific distances.



That makes sense if the goal is to make sure that everybody always uses a polearm. My personal take on each point is this:

"Reach" weapon property: This weapon adds 5' to your reach while you wield it.
Opportunity Attacks: You can make an Opportunity attack when an opponent moves out of your reach.
Polearm Master: While you are wielding a polearm, opponents provoke an attack of opportunity when they enter your reach.
Sentinel: Creatures within reach provoke an opportunity attack from you even if they take the disengage action. When a creature within 5' of you makes an attack against a target other than you, you may use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature.
Mage Slayer: When a creature within 5' of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature. You have advantage on saving throws against spells cast by creatures with 5' of you.

Reasoning: Doubling the radius of your reach increases the area you can threaten by 4x. That is just too large an area to be making reaction attacks in (though to be honest, I could see myself letting this one slide). And it is FAR too large an area to be getting advantages on savings throws against spells in (absolutely zero chance of me letting this one slide in my game).

And the best part is, those interpretations really don't hurt Polearms. They are still really good. As is the Polearm feat.

Ed: Trimmed excessive quote of OP.

[rlc]

If the wizard backs up 5 more feet to cast a spell, you still get an opportunity attack for him moving anyway. I see no problem with things that specify 5 feet actually meaning 5 feet.

[Theodoxus]

Does a reach weapon have to be used with reach? Is short-hafting implied?

[Easy_Lee]

Mage Slayer: When a creature within 5' of you casts a spell, you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against that creature. You have advantage on saving throws against spells cast by creatures with 5' of you.

You realize that, with the rest of your interpretations working off of reach, this makes the mage slayer feat not function at all when wielding a reach weapon, correct? I don't mean polearms, I mean reach weapons. If someone has mage slayer and is holding a whip, a wizard within 5' can back up to 10' without provoking AOO. From there, mage slayer doesn't work. Unless you specifically grapple the wizard or in some other way limit his movement, MS grants no benefit with reach.

The way I see it, having some rules work off of reach and others work off of specific ranges has many disadvantages:

It's confusing (what exactly am I doing for mage slayer?)
It's unintuitive (why does this work off of reach while that works off of an arbitrary distance?)
It's inconsistent with the other rules
It requires too much close examination of the rules
It can confuse the hell out of new players who assumed the two were the same
It can cause a build to break, particularly reach weapon + mage slayer, when using reach weapons

In addition, I think it's extreme folly to arbitrarily change the rules just so one build or another isn't "too powerful". It makes the player feel that you're changing the game and, indeed, convoluting the world on a whim.

There are still more than enough reasons to use other two-handers (more dps) or non-whip one-handers (no reach weapon has the light property, can't dual wield whips without a feat). You don't need to nerf polearms just because they have support this edition; that would be like not letting your players cast spells in 3.5.

[Easy_Lee]

Does a reach weapon have to be used with reach? Is short-hafting implied?

Short-hafting (and the whip equivalent) are implied for everything besides lances. Lances specifically have disadvantage when attacking within 5'.

[edge2054]

You realize that, with the rest of your interpretations working off of reach, this makes the mage slayer feat not function at all when wielding a reach weapon, correct? I don't mean polearms, I mean reach weapons. If someone has mage slayer and is holding a whip, a wizard within 5' can back up to 10' without provoking AOO. From there, mage slayer doesn't work. Unless you specifically grapple the wizard or in some other way limit his movement, MS grants no benefit with reach.


I think I'm okay with this.

Reach weapons have dead space. Getting inside of that dead space should make the reach weapon harder to use. The 3.5 rules emulated this quite directly. The 5th edition rules seem to take a less punishing approach but still make an attempt to emulate it via specific edge cases like the ones you're pointing out.

Mage Slayer specifically operates when you're right in someone's face, pressing the attack. Reach weapons simply don't function this way. They're about searching for openings from a distance.

Additionally, one aspect of both Mage Slayer and Sentinel still works with reach weapons. When you damage a caster they have disadvantage on their concentration saving throw and when you hit a creature with an opportunity attack you reduce movement to 0, respectively. All of the other benefits they give are specific about the range they operate at and I assume that in this case the RAI and the RAW match as the language looks to be intentionally worded to exclude reach weapons.

[Rummy]

To me, the easiest way to handle it is to make op attacks key off of moving five feet away for all weapons, including polearms. Then make the extra attack from Polearm Master the exception.

[Izha]

You realize that, with the rest of your interpretations working off of reach, this makes the mage slayer feat not function at all when wielding a reach weapon, correct? I don't mean polearms, I mean reach weapons. If someone has mage slayer and is holding a whip, a wizard within 5' can back up to 10' without provoking AOO. From there, mage slayer doesn't work. Unless you specifically grapple the wizard or in some other way limit his movement, MS grants no benefit with reach.

Yeah, and I'm perfectly ok with that. I don't see why MS needs to grant a benefit with reach. Its not part of a feat for Reach weapons; MS is its own thing. Also, I'm curious about your thoughts on my point regarding the area that MS would cover if you interpreted it in your suggested way. I really think that interpretation makes MS far too strong.


The way I see it, having some rules work off of reach and others work off of specific ranges has many disadvantages:

It's confusing (what exactly am I doing for mage slayer?)
It's unintuitive (why does this work off of reach while that works off of an arbitrary distance?)
It's inconsistent with the other rules
It requires too much close examination of the rules
It can confuse the hell out of new players who assumed the two were the same
It can cause a build to break, particularly reach weapon + mage slayer, when using reach weapons


Admittedly, my take on the rules requires players to have read the feats that they take. I'm not sure why that's an unreasonable expectation.


In addition, I think it's extreme folly to arbitrarily change the rules just so one build or another isn't "too powerful". It makes the player feel that you're changing the game and, indeed, convoluting the world on a whim.

Ironically, you're advocating for changing the rules to make a particular build more powerful. The only rule I'm "changing" is making the Reach property of a weapon function while wielded rather than while attacking.


There are still more than enough reasons to use other two-handers (more dps) or non-whip one-handers (no reach weapon has the light property, can't dual wield whips without a feat). You don't need to nerf polearms just because they have support this edition; that would be like not letting your players cast spells in 3.5.

But I'm not nerfing polearms. I'm using the rules as they appear in the book. Arguing against a buff is not a nerf.....

[rlc]

The way I see it, having some rules work off of reach and others work off of specific ranges has many disadvantages:

It's confusing (what exactly am I doing for mage slayer?)
It's unintuitive (why does this work off of reach while that works off of an arbitrary distance?)
It's inconsistent with the other rules
It requires too much close examination of the rules
It can confuse the hell out of new players who assumed the two were the same
It can cause a build to break, particularly reach weapon + mage slayer, when using reach weapons


if it's confusing, read it again. it makes perfect sense as it's written. because they're two different things. why does magic have more damage types than non-magical weapons do? it's pretty consistent no, it just requires you to read them. if it specifically says a certain distance, then it means that distance. just like a spell can only go a certain distance. then they should ask. if it's a build that relies on reading rules incorrectly, it wasn't a very good build in the first place.

[Soular]

You realize that, with the rest of your interpretations working off of reach, this makes the mage slayer feat not function at all when wielding a reach weapon, correct? I don't mean polearms, I mean reach weapons. If someone has mage slayer and is holding a whip, a wizard within 5' can back up to 10' without provoking AOO. From there, mage slayer doesn't work. Unless you specifically grapple the wizard or in some other way limit his movement, MS grants no benefit with reach.

It's not as bad as all that.

If you are five feet away from a mage (in an adjacent square), then when he steps back to 10 feet you get your AO. Since your reach is only 10 feet when you are attacking with the weapon, for AO checks it is still only 5 feet. This means that when a monster is approaching you, your attack goes off when he reaches 5 feet. Since his movement into your normal 5 foot melee range is what triggers the AO. If you reduce his movement to 0 feet. Does this mean he stops dead in his tracks at two squares away, or one square away? If it is two squares away, then all weapons used with Sentinel work the same way, and Sentinel just got a bit better in my eyes.

[Easy_Lee]

It's not as bad as all that.

If you are five feet away from a mage (in an adjacent square), then when he steps back to 10 feet you get your AO. Since your reach is only 10 feet when you are attacking with the weapon, for AO checks it is still only 5 feet. This means that when a monster is approaching you, your attack goes off when he reaches 5 feet. Since his movement into your normal 5 foot melee range is what triggers the AO. If you reduce his movement to 0 feet. Does this mean he stops dead in his tracks at two squares away, or one square away? If it is two squares away, then all weapons used with Sentinel work the same way, and Sentinel just got a bit better in my eyes.

That interpretation also means that reach weapons don't have reach when making attacks of opportunity. That means opportunity attacks with lances are always at disadvantage. That's obviously not intended.

I think for simplicity's sake, and the sake of not making the reach benefit not function with feats, it's best to just have reach weapons increase reach and make these feats work off of reach.

You may disagree. However, I believe the disagreements so far have only to do with limiting the power of polearms (whips and lances seem to have gone unnoticed). People don't want polearms or other reach weapons to be overpowered, which is fine. But they already have less damage or other limitations due to their reach. And having greater reach is not nearly as advantageous as most people think it is.

Mage Slayer: hitting mages from an extra 5' away doesn't have much benefit. You were going to sit right on top of the mage you were harrying anyway, and probably take the sentinel feat so he can't (easily) escape. The only time this comes into play is when you had exactly enough movement to get within 10', but not 5', of the mage.
Sentinel: an extra 5' is nice, but not game breaking. Since you only have one reaction, the only real benefit here is that your allies can stand an extra 5' away. And with polearms, there's a larger area around you in which enemies can move freely; that's the downside. It's not broken in any way.

Honestly, I don't see poles combined with these feats as either common or particularly powerful compared to normal options. Unless you argue that AOO must always be within 5', you can still pull the biggest benefit of sentinel (freeze opponents when hitting them with AOOs) with a polearm. You can still attack foes from further away to keep out of reach of their AOOs (there is no way to interpret the rules that takes away this benefit). And you're still doing 1.5 less damage per attack than a greatsword (halberd), or 2 less damage than a rapier (whip).

I don't see why this is such a point of contention. The same people who think polearm mastery is OP don't seem to have a problem with repelling eldritch blast on an eldritch knight, or bear-totem moon druids, or barbarian assassin 3's, or conjurer wizards, or open-hand monks with sanctuary blocking choke-points.

The biggest benefits of polearm mastery come online no matter what you do. It works with the primary benefit of sentinel any way you read it (again, unless you deny AOOs at reach, which would be silly due to the lance problem above). And it's hardly the most broken character you can build, anyway. Hell, I built a ranger BM more powerful than a polearm master fighter.

I don't think people trying to get the benefits of reach use should risk getting rules-lawyered out of it when there are so many more powerful options out there. But that's just me.

[Izha]

It's not as bad as all that.

If you are five feet away from a mage (in an adjacent square), then when he steps back to 10 feet you get your AO. Since your reach is only 10 feet when you are attacking with the weapon, for AO checks it is still only 5 feet. This means that when a monster is approaching you, your attack goes off when he reaches 5 feet. Since his movement into your normal 5 foot melee range is what triggers the AO. If you reduce his movement to 0 feet. Does this mean he stops dead in his tracks at two squares away, or one square away? If it is two squares away, then all weapons used with Sentinel work the same way, and Sentinel just got a bit better in my eyes.


Yeah, strictly speaking this is what the rules state as far as I can tell. All things considered, the actual rules may be best.

[rlc]

there needs to be some kind of drinking game for this. and if there already is, then implying that "x is rules lawyering because it disagrees with my tiny niche, even if my niche is the exact opposite of what said rules say" needs to be part of it.

[Rummy]

I don't have a problem with lances having disadvantage for op attacks.

[Rezby]

One question? How do you visualize, in the theater of the mind, someone pulling off an opportunity attack with a lance? Assuming you're holding it by the end, of course. Because nobody is playing Homestuck the RPG here, nobody holds lances like Vriska did

honestly, looking over the feats and the rules right now, they all seem fine to me as is. Mage slayer and sentinel grant you specific bonuses not when you're capable of striking the mage/whoever, but when you're right in their face, in adjacent "squares".

with polearm master granting you the opportunity attack when creatures enter your reach, and your reach being defined as 10 feet with a polearm, it should be able to stack with sentinel but not mage slayer.

[Strill]

It's not as bad as all that.

If you are five feet away from a mage (in an adjacent square), then when he steps back to 10 feet you get your AO. Since your reach is only 10 feet when you are attacking with the weapon, for AO checks it is still only 5 feet. This means that when a monster is approaching you, your attack goes off when he reaches 5 feet. Since his movement into your normal 5 foot melee range is what triggers the AO. If you reduce his movement to 0 feet. Does this mean he stops dead in his tracks at two squares away, or one square away? If it is two squares away, then all weapons used with Sentinel work the same way, and Sentinel just got a bit better in my eyes.

That's so damn confusing. So now that means that Polearm Master's mention of "Reach" is actually redundant and meaningless?


One question? How do you visualize, in the theater of the mind, someone pulling off an opportunity attack with a lance? Assuming you're holding it by the end, of course. Because nobody is playing Homestuck the RPG here, nobody holds lances like Vriska did

honestly, looking over the feats and the rules right now, they all seem fine to me as is. Mage slayer and sentinel grant you specific bonuses not when you're capable of striking the mage/whoever, but when you're right in their face, in adjacent "squares".

with polearm master granting you the opportunity attack when creatures enter your reach, and your reach being defined as 10 feet with a polearm, it should be able to stack with sentinel but not mage slayer.

You're behind in the discussion. Reach weapons only have a 10' reach when you're attacking with them, so Polearm Master apparently only works when enemies come within 5' of you.

[Soular]

That's so damn confusing. So now that means that Polearm Master's mention of "Reach" is actually redundant and meaningless?



You're behind in the discussion. Reach weapons only have a 10' reach when you're attacking with them, so Polearm Master apparently only works when enemies come within 5' of you.

It truly is!

To think WotC actually had a beta-test and everything, and still flub the rules wording like this. Were they listening at all?

[Pex]

How about just reusing 3E rules regarding reach and AoOs? They weren't so confusing.

[Easy_Lee]

Or how about we just use the catch-all term "reach" so we don't have to worry about specific ranges or any of that BS.

[Oncoming Storm]

Read the rules for reach weapons carefully.

"This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."

Not for enemies triggering AOOs, or for any other reason.

You can attack with a 10ft reach, but when you are not attacking, your reach is no different then any other character's.
This means that, with polearm master, you get an AOO if someone moves within 5 feet of you. In game terms, that seems to represent the enemy moving past the point/blade of the weapon to attack you, and getting whacked for their trouble.

[Easy_Lee]

Read the rules for reach weapons carefully.

"This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."

Not for enemies triggering AOOs, or for any other reason.

You can attack with a 10ft reach, but when you are not attacking, your reach is no different then any other character's.
This means that, with polearm master, you get an AOO if someone moves within 5 feet of you. In game terms, that seems to represent the enemy moving past the point/blade of the weapon to attack you, and getting whacked for their trouble.

If you read my posts, I'm very aware of this (extremely bad) interpretation. It's not bad because it's wrong, RAW it's absolutely right. It's bad because it means AOOs with lances are always at disadvantage. There's no way WOTC intended that, no matter how goofy some of their rules are. And it doesn't make logical sense, either, that you can't hit someone who lets their guard down when they're well within your reach (10' with reach weapons).

Basically, the reach rules are bollocks. That's why I proposed this houserule in the first place, and am hoping enough people adopt it that it because errata. The reach and AOO rules are way more complicated than they need to be, and needlessly confuse new players.

For those who think being able to make opportunity attacks at a longer range is broken, for the cost of reduced damage, I suggest you try it in game and see what you think.

[Strill]

If you read my posts, I'm very aware of this (extremely bad) interpretation. It's not bad because it's wrong, RAW it's absolutely right. It's bad because it means AOOs with lances are always at disadvantage. There's no way WOTC intended that, no matter how goofy some of their rules are. And it doesn't make logical sense, either, that you can't hit someone who lets their guard down when they're well within your reach (10' with reach weapons).

Basically, the reach rules are bollocks. That's why I proposed this houserule in the first place, and am hoping enough people adopt it that it because errata. The reach and AOO rules are way more complicated than they need to be, and needlessly confuse new players.

For those who think being able to make opportunity attacks at a longer range is broken, for the cost of reduced damage, I suggest you try it in game and see what you think.

Are you familiar with what a Lance is? It's an extremely long, heavy, unwieldy spear intended to be used by cavalry while charging. By long I mean 10 to 15 feet long. It's seriously awkward to use. You're not supposed to actually thrust with it. It's too clumsy, especially if you're holding it in one hand. They even built special lance rests to help hold it upright. That's why it gives disadvantage. You're supposed to just hold it up and let the momentum of your charge drive it into enemies. The fact that it can't provide decent opportunity attacks makes perfect sense to me.

[Easy_Lee]

Are you familiar with what a Lance is? It's an extremely long, heavy, unwieldy spear intended to be used by cavalry while charging. By long I mean 10 to 15 feet long. It's seriously awkward to use. You're not supposed to actually thrust with it. It's too clumsy, especially if you're holding it in one hand. They even built special lance rests to help hold it upright. That's why it gives disadvantage. You're supposed to just hold it up and let the momentum of your charge drive it into enemies. The fact that it can't provide decent opportunity attacks makes perfect sense to me.

The same can be said of a pike. And one has to wonder how a whip can deliver a single killing blow at all. And indeed, if a lance's power is in the charge, one has to wonder how a fighter can make up to four attacks with it without moving at all.

I think you misunderstand my purpose. I'm not trying to make polearms OP. Having reach effects for the two feats I mentioned and AOOs is nice, but nothing compared with some of the other tricks out there. No one is contesting repelling agonizing EB doing up to 4d10 + 4*CHA damage and moving a target 40 feet with no save, at will, quickened to a bonus action by a warlock 2 / sorcerer X. We're all fine with barbarians taking three levels of rogue to get a full round of crits on a surprise round. And yet we argue about whether players with reach weapons actually have longer reach or not, and whether effects obviously based on reach actually depend on it.

Seems you guys care more about RAW than RAI, and care even less about game balance.

[Strill]

The same can be said of a pike. And one has to wonder how a whip can deliver a single killing blow at all. And indeed, if a lance's power is in the charge, one has to wonder how a fighter can make up to four attacks with it without moving at all.

I think you misunderstand my purpose. I'm not trying to make polearms OP. Having reach effects for the two feats I mentioned and AOOs is nice, but nothing compared with some of the other tricks out there. No one is contesting repelling agonizing EB doing up to 4d10 + 4*CHA damage and moving a target 40 feet with no save, at will, quickened to a bonus action by a warlock 2 / sorcerer X. We're all fine with barbarians taking three levels of rogue to get a full round of crits on a surprise round. And yet we argue about whether players with reach weapons actually have longer reach or not, and whether effects obviously based on reach actually depend on it.

Seems you guys care more about RAW than RAI, and care even less about game balance.

If the only side-effect to a particular ruling is that lances have bad opportunity attacks, then I honestly don't mind because lances are a niche weapon intended for mounted combat anyway, and opportunity attacks probably aren't going to come up much in mounted combat.

[Soular]

Are you familiar with what a Lance is? It's an extremely long, heavy, unwieldy spear intended to be used by cavalry while charging. By long I mean 10 to 15 feet long. It's seriously awkward to use. You're not supposed to actually thrust with it. It's too clumsy, especially if you're holding it in one hand. They even built special lance rests to help hold it upright. That's why it gives disadvantage. You're supposed to just hold it up and let the momentum of your charge drive it into enemies. The fact that it can't provide decent opportunity attacks makes perfect sense to me.

I gotta agree here. The lance is a wicked weapon in 5E. Given that, and the nature of the weapon in reality, I think a disadvantage to AOs is warranted.

[Soular]

The same can be said of a pike. And one has to wonder how a whip can deliver a single killing blow at all. And indeed, if a lance's power is in the charge, one has to wonder how a fighter can make up to four attacks with it without moving at all.

I think you misunderstand my purpose. I'm not trying to make polearms OP. Having reach effects for the two feats I mentioned and AOOs is nice, but nothing compared with some of the other tricks out there. No one is contesting repelling agonizing EB doing up to 4d10 + 4*CHA damage and moving a target 40 feet with no save, at will, quickened to a bonus action by a warlock 2 / sorcerer X. We're all fine with barbarians taking three levels of rogue to get a full round of crits on a surprise round. And yet we argue about whether players with reach weapons actually have longer reach or not, and whether effects obviously based on reach actually depend on it.

Seems you guys care more about RAW than RAI, and care even less about game balance.

I don't see how there is any concern for game balance here. RAW is clear, if a bit hard to discern. Nothing would lead me to believe that RAI doesn't follow lock-step with RAW based on the very specific wording used (ie. 5 feet vs. melee range, and the caveat "when attacking").

So lances aren't that great an all-rounder - they never were in RL either. And I for one wouldn't be using one except as the opening attack on horseback.

FWIW: I would have given pikes the same disadvantage on AOs as well.

[Easy_Lee]

I don't see how there is any concern for game balance here.
Every weapon type has advantages. With one-handers, you can take duelist and outdamage a 1d10 with your rapier. That requires no feats. You can then take defensive duelist and shield master to make yourself nigh unkillable, or a myriad of other options.

For two handers, you take all of the great weapon feats and do great damage. You don't use a polearm for that, though, because 2d6 > 1d10.

Take archery, and you can hit targets from much, much farther away, more accurately. Take crossbow expert, and you can use a heavy crossbow for 1d10 or hand crossbows for 1d6 + 1d6 bonus. Add sharpshooter, and you convincingly outdamage anything a reach character is going to put out.

The only benefit to using a polearm build is to pull tricks with reach. Make your AOOs from reach and use sentinel to freeze the target in place with no risk to yourself. Use mage slayer with reach and gain basically no benefit over standing next to the mage, but hey, whatever. Trip targets from reach and...wait, you can do that with bows.

Everything reach weapons do, bows can do just the same. The only thing reach weapons have that bows don't is the opportunity attack. If that opportunity attack is the same as you would get with a two-hander or duelist rapier, then reach weapons are straight up an inferior choice. Polearm master can help early, but it hardly does enough to keep the polearm user strong throughout the game without reach AOOs. The GWM is going to outdamage him, the duelist shield user is going to outlive him, the archer isn't even in melee, and the polearm master has no tricks to use to his advantage. The fact that he might get more opportunity attacks doesn't help him much when the others do more damage with their opportunity attacks. The fact that he gets a free bonus attack doesn't help him when the other's regular attacks deal more damage, and all of the others can get bonus actions from feats, too.

That's why this is such a big deal for me. Without reach actually applying reach, the polearm isn't even a fun choice anymore. It's just an elaborate trap option, much like dual wielding. And I think we can all agree that trap options shouldn't exist.

[Strill]

Mearls weighs in: http://i.stack.imgur.com/pzX7W.jpg
Crawford weighs in: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502972149175287808
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502520711395557376
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502917024834539521

Stackexchange Q&A for this topic: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46352/does-a-reach-weapon-allow-you-to-threaten-squares-10-feet-away-or-not

[rlc]

Not everything has to be optimized.

[Sindeloke]

It's not about optimization, it's about whether a feature actually works.

A reach weapon that doesn't actually give you reach is like a heavy armor that offers +2 to AC. +2 to AC is a perfectly fine benefit, not underpowered per se, light armor types get that and it's balanced. But it's not a rational number for heavy armor, because higher armor values is the *point* of heavy armor. Yes, heavy armor is better than light; that comes at the cost of 1) being harder to get proficiency in and 2) denying a Dex bonus. Likewise, not being able to do things at a greater range is not rational with a reach weapon, because being able to do things at a greater range is the *point* of reach weapons. It comes at the cost of 1) giving enemies more freedom once within your reach and 2) giving up the damage or defense you could get from a non-reach weapon.

I'm actually totally ok with lances being lame, myself,mind, they're super-specialized. But regardless, I'm with Easy_Lee on this one, everything is way more intuitive if reach is reach is reach and not sometimes 10' and sometimes 5' with the same weapon.

[rlc]

I'm fine with reach is reach is reach, but reach doesn't have to apply to something designed to work only when you're right next to somebody. For example, the mage slayer feat. It makes sense to get an opportunity attack for being next to somebody who's concentrating on something besides you, like casting a spell. That's why ranged weapons don't get it, too. They absolutely should be handled by something else.

[Izha]

Every weapon type has advantages. With one-handers, you can take duelist and outdamage a 1d10 with your rapier. That requires no feats. You can then take defensive duelist and shield master to make yourself nigh unkillable, or a myriad of other options.


Yes, but you can't benefit from the bonus attack of PM, or the bonus attack on crit/kill of GWM, or the damage for attack trade off from GWM. Yes, you are limited to 1 bonus attack per turn. But polearms allow you to get a bonus attack every round, even if you don't get any crits or kills. You can fish for a crit or kill with your regular attacks, and if you don't get one, just toss out the d4+mods bonus attack from PM.



For two handers, you take all of the great weapon feats and do great damage. You don't use a polearm for that, though, because 2d6 > 1d10.


Polearms benefit from both GWM and GWF. In addition to PM. A slightly smaller average damage roll is a small price to pay for reach, extra AoO's and a bonus attack.



Take archery, and you can hit targets from much, much farther away, more accurately. Take crossbow expert, and you can use a heavy crossbow for 1d10 or hand crossbows for 1d6 + 1d6 bonus. Add sharpshooter, and you convincingly outdamage anything a reach character is going to put out.


I don't think that is true. Polearms lack range and +2 attack. They gain AoO's and a bonus attack.



The only benefit to using a polearm build is to pull tricks with reach.


Sorry, but that is plainly false. Reach is an additional benefit to doing first rate damage.



The GWM is going to outdamage him


There is nothing to stop a polearm user taking GWM and doing more damage than someone with a plain old greatsword or greataxe. See: Bonus attack, more AoO's.



That's why this is such a big deal for me. Without reach actually applying reach, the polearm isn't even a fun choice anymore. It's just an elaborate trap option, much like dual wielding. And I think we can all agree that trap options shouldn't exist.


I think you need to reread the feats again. Polearms are in no danger of becoming a trap option. Even if you take the worst possible reading for reach rules, polearms are fantastic.

[Fwiffo86]

Have you considered the option that "optimized" builds are counter intuitive to the design philosophy of 5e? From what I have seen, there is evidence to suggest this.

[Person_Man]

I had some very extensive posts about this issue on the WotC forum both during the playtest and when the PHB first came out, detailing at length all of the various problems and unintended consequences with the current version of the rules.

The basic issue is that everything in 5E is built around the theater of the mind. There is no actual map or grid where movement can be precisely tracked. So you, as a DM, can basically just award an Opportunity Attack whenever you think one should happen. And Feats like Mage Slayer or Sentinel are basically just suggestions to try and give that player additional Opportunity Attacks in situations where you think they should apply. Some DMs like the concept of battlefield control, others despise it. So they tried (and in my opinion failed), to make the rules reflect this and allow for either play style.

Note that they included specific measurement in feet for everything (as opposed to just adjacent, short range, medium range, long range, other) because its tradition and they wanted to keep in the core rules for use with the 4E and miniature modules which will be coming out in the 5E DMG. But that measurement is not actually important in the theater of the mind. Remember, you as the DM determine where everyone is standing in relationship to each other each turn. You can't possibly track it precisely without using a map.

So you have two options. You can either accept the fact that most of the 5E rules are basically just guidelines/DM fiat and not read it like a legal document or a chemistry textbook or Google Map directions. Or you can rewrite half the rules to meet more precise definitions.

If you're going to do the latter, you should probably just use a map and the miniature module in the DMG, or if you're unwilling to wait for the DMG, use the 3.5 or 4E rules with the 5E classes, feats, spells, and monsters.

[AgentPaper]

What exactly is wrong with Lances always having disadvantage on opportunity attacks? They're large, unwieldy weapons, designed for massive blows while charging. They aren't the kind of thing you'd expect to whip around and smack someone with when they turn their back on you, so it makes perfect sense that trying to use them like that will be harder than with lighter, more maneuverable weapons.

The rules as written work just fine, once you realize how they interact with each other. The glaive-user move to 10 feet from an orc, smacks him, then next turn the orc tries to move in to smack him back, and the polearm master feat lets the glaive-user smack him again on the way in.

Having reach weapons (or at least polearms) always grant you that extra 5 feet of reach is a fine houserule if you like the idea of polearm fighters controlling large areas of the battlefield, but it isn't how it works by RAW or RAI, so you shouldn't assume it works that way just because you want it to. If you want to make a build that uses house rules, you have to ask your DM.

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm guessing that the fact that certain feats don't seem to work at the full 10 feet reach is an intended balance point. Reach is a strong enough property, and the feats in question are strong enough, without the combo also letting you control huge areas of the battlefield. There is 1 feat that is supposed to let polearm users control large swaths of the battlefield, and that feat is Polearm Master.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm guessing that the fact that certain feats don't seem to work at the full 10 feet reach is an intended balance point. Reach is a strong enough property, and the feats in question are strong enough, without the combo also letting you control huge areas of the battlefield. There is 1 feat that is supposed to let polearm users control large swaths of the battlefield, and that feat is Polearm Master.

Mearls already said that AOO's are supposed to work with reach. At this point, that's pretty much confirmed. Only question left is if that works with the non-opportunity-attack benefits of sentinel and mage slayer.

[MaxWilson]

Read the rules for reach weapons carefully.

"This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."

Not for enemies triggering AOOs, or for any other reason.

How is an Attack of Opportunity not an attack? It doesn't say "when you use an Attack action", it just says "when you attack". Seems pretty clear to me that Polearm Master triggers opportunity attacks at 10' unless you're using a quarterstaff. If someone tries to get close to you, you stick him in the chest with your pike. I think that's absolutely fine.

I wouldn't change Mage Slayer or Sentinel's 5' language though. There's no reason it should become easier to resist spells just because you're holding a long stick. (Honestly I find Mage Slayer's spell resistance confusing enough already.) But you still get the disadvantage-on-concentration-checks and that is quite good.

[Demonic Spoon]

Mearls already said that AOO's are supposed to work with reach. At this point, that's pretty much confirmed. Only question left is if that works with the non-opportunity-attack benefits of sentinel and mage slayer

Sure, and I think it makes sense with OAs. It's a fairly easy interpretation from the wording, Mearls confirmed it, and it seems like a natural extension of the OA rules.

I'm referring specifically to the feats - mage slayer and sentinel. Those feats are way better if you interpret them to work out to 10 feet, and they're already very strong feats. Furthermore, they'd combo very strongly with each other, encouraging you to take all of them if you take one.

[Easy_Lee]

Sure, and I think it makes sense with OAs. It's a fairly easy interpretation from the wording, Mearls confirmed it, and it seems like a natural extension of the OA rules.

I'm referring specifically to the feats - mage slayer and sentinel. Those feats are way better if you interpret them to work out to 10 feet, and they're already very strong feats.

Clever use of mechanics. The keen mind feat becomes much more powerful on conjurers.

[Demonic Spoon]

Clever use of mechanics. The keen mind feat becomes much more powerful on a conjurers.


Most optimization counts as "clever use of mechanics", that doesn't make it good for the game or any less destructive to game balance and variety.

[Easy_Lee]

Most optimization counts as "clever use of mechanics", that doesn't make it good for the game or any less destructive to game balance and variety.

You seen my signature? Anything can be optimized with a little creativity. You assume optimization is a bad thing when, in fact, it's a big part of the appeal of the game for many of us. This isn't 3.5 where one optimized character means everyone else is useless.

[archaeo]

Most optimization counts as "clever use of mechanics", that doesn't make it good for the game or any less destructive to game balance and variety.

In the context of reach and the pertinent feats, would they really be outright broken if you expand the range 10ft, much less "destructive"?

As to the wider point about optimization, lord knows that everyone wants something different from D&D. The main problem with the game is that it has to try and be everything to everyone; a light RPG perfect for shared storytelling, a crunchy RPG perfect for tactical combat games, a tricky RPG filled with mechanical complexity for the rules tinkerers, a simple RPG that serves as an easy platform for building new worlds and new campaigns, etc., etc. While 5e probably goes further than any other edition to appeal to all these different crowds, one of the reasons we have so many competing TRPGs is because it can't help but be imperfect to all of them as well.

At its best, D&D is the shared language that all TRPG players can speak. 5e certainly aspires to that goal, and time will tell how well they can meet it. For the purposes of this discussion, optimizers can definitely eke out some mechanical advantages through clever play, but those who aren't interested are virtually guaranteed not to fall too far behind over the course of the adventuring day. Seems like a good compromise to me!

[Demonic Spoon]

You seen my signature? Anything can be optimized with a little creativity. You assume optimization is a bad thing when, in fact, it's a big part of the appeal of the game for many of us. This isn't 3.5 where one optimized character means everyone else is useless.


that's great, but I wasn't arguing what you should play with, I was arguing what was the likely intention of the rules being written the way they are.

[Easy_Lee]

that's great, but I wasn't arguing what you should play with, I was arguing what was the likely intention of the rules being written the way they are.

Then, based on the developer posts, I'd say you're either misinterpreting intent or overestimating the power of OAs with reach working with sentinel.

[Rummy]

Another nuance... I've been playing that the bonus attack from PM does not have reach, thus you must be adjacent to deploy it. That makes the most sense to me given that you are using the butt end.