Adjudicating Reach

[Kryx]

We haven't had a good Reach thread in about 5 months now. I've been waiting and hoping for an official Crawford ruling, but it looks like one will not come.

I'd like to understand how most GMs rule reach in 5e. There are 2 main options:

Reach weapons only allow you to attack at the given range during an attack. It does not give you threatening reach at the given range. Meaning no AoO at that range.
Reach weapons apply threatening reach at the given range.



Here are most of the intricacies that Easy_Lee pointed out:

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.



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

So with that I'd like to understand how most GMs are ruling this issue.

[Mr.Moron]

If I was ruling it, with a reach weapon...:

I'd say that you've got 10' reach for all attacking purposes including AoOs. That is to say if a procedure or rule references "your reach" and also includes you attacking in the procedure, that procedure treats your reach as 10' with a reach weapon.

If somehow reach becomes important for purposes other than attacking, it's treated as 5' even with a reach weapon. Though I'm hard pressed to think of what those conditions would be.

You threaten an AoO when someone leaves your reach goes from 10'->15' or 15'->10' in the case of polearm master. You don't get an AoO with reach weapons when someone moves from 10'->5' or 5'->10' or dances around anywhere in that ring.

Mage slayer does what it is says it does, and lets you attack people in within 5' of you.

Sentinel, reads like an oversight to me and I'd replace the wording of 5' with "Your reach". Obviously that's a houserule, but really I don't care.

EDIT: You can't do anything obviously nonsensical like phasing your weapon through a solid surface because the conditions meet the exact wording of some feat or ability that doesn't explicitly call your ability to move solid objects through other solid objects.

[Giant2005]

I think the reach weapon definition was made in that way specifically to avoid it making it harder to get an Opportunity Attack, they just hadn't considered it when used in conjunction with the optional feats (and it would make getting OAs via those feats easier if it wasn't worded in such a way).
I'd rule it 5' for a regular OA but 10' when used in conjunction with any of those feats - the best of both worlds essentially.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm flattered that you used a quote from me. For the sake of simplicity, my opinion is that the word "reach" be substituted any time one is talking about melee range, and reach weapons simply "increase your reach by 5' for the purpose of melee attacks." That method is probably the least likely to confuse new players.

[Kryx]

I'm flattered that you used a quote from me.
Why? You make a lot of insightful posts that really examine the game. I think you outlined the problems with reach as written quite well.

[Person_Man]

In the theater of the mind, few people are keeping careful track of exactly where they are standing and their precise distance. So as long as the players just describe what they want to do, and the DM adjudicates it in a reasonable fashion, its not an issue. If you're not paying careful attention to the precise distance between creatures, it doesn't matter.

The problem arises when you use miniatures (where it clearly causes a bunch of issues, as outlined above), or when a player decides to be a rules lawyer (my Wizard steps precisely 5 feet away but not more then 10 feet away, and then casts a spell) or the DM decides to be a jerk (Goblin Conga Line). Then the reach rules are basically a mess.

I strongly prefer the theater of the mind sans lawyers. But in the rare cases when we do need to use miniatures, I basically default to the 3.5 reach rules. 5 ft spaces exist. Opportunity Attacks occur when an enemy within your Reach moves outside of a space you threaten. Reach weapons add 5 feet to your reach. Abilities/Feats that work with weapons (Whirlwind Attack, Mage Slayer, Sentinel, Polearm Master, etc) have a range equal to your Reach.

[coredump]

I play that your reach is 5', regardless of what weapon you happen to be holding. It seems to make the most sense with the most rules (including PAM)

The only issue I have found with it is with one tweet regarding Sentinel. But I think it holds up well otherwise, and clears up other issues.

[Easy_Lee]

I play that your reach is 5', regardless of what weapon you happen to be holding. It seems to make the most sense with the most rules (including PAM)

The only issue I have found with it is with one tweet regarding Sentinel. But I think it holds up well otherwise, and clears up other issues.

So you're fine with lance OAs always having disadvantage, and with polearm users not actually having reach when it comes to OAs? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Begs the question of what one is actually doing when performing an OA, using sentinel or mage slayer, etc.

If I was a new player, I would be very confused. Having been on these forums a while, I would still find it immersion-breaking. From a practical standpoint, keeping track of multiple values for "reach" feels very meta-gamey and unnecessary, something I might have done in 3.5e. 5e was supposed to simplify these kinds of things.

[Fralex]

My ruling is that while the two interpretations will certainly have different effects on one's game, neither one is game-breaking. Pick the one that sounds more fun, make sure everyone is on the same page with it, and use it consistently. It's only five feet of difference.

[calebrus]

I play it very simply.
OAs and reaction attacks from every source can occur at 5' (or adjacent) or when leaving that area moving away from the attacker.
The OA from Polearm Master triggered when an enemy "enters your reach" occurs when they step into a space 10' from you, as if you had set the polearm for a charge.

Your reach is 5' at all times. In terms from earlier editions, you threaten the squares adjacent to you.
Your reach is 10' when using your action to attack.
Your reach is 10' when set for a charge (via PM's OA). In terms from earlier editions, you threaten all squares within 2 from yourself, but only for the purposes of an enemy moving closer to you. For all other purposes, you threaten adjacent squares only, as listed above.

You don't have to declare that you're set for a charge. Having the feat makes it implicit that you are always prepared for that situation.
There are zero problems with this ruling insofar as the matching with other features and abilities.
Reading it this way, everything works exactly as described.

[Easy_Lee]

I play it very simply.
OAs and reaction attacks from every source can occur at 5' (or adjacent) or when leaving that area moving away from the attacker.
The OA from Polearm Master triggered when an enemy "enters your reach" occurs when they step into a space 10' from you, as if you had set the polearm for a charge.

Your reach is 5' at all times. In terms from earlier editions, you threaten the squares adjacent to you.
Your reach is 10' when using your action to attack.
Your reach is 10' when set for a charge (via PM's OA). You don't have to declare that you're set for a charge. Having the feat makes it implicit that you are always prepared for that situation. In terms from earlier editions, you threaten all squares within 2 from yourself, but only for the purposes of an enemy moving closer to you. For all other purposes, you threaten adjacent squares only, as listed above.

There are zero problems with this ruling insofar as the matching with other features and abilities.

That's less a "here's what makes sense" or "here's what's simple" system, and more just justification for a strict reading of what we have. In addition to having to keep track of what "reach" actually means depending on the context, it devalues reach weapons significantly.

I should be able to strike someone from 10' away with a whip. I shouldn't have to step within 5' of him to hit him with it when he tries to run away (basic OA). I shouldn't have to be within 5' to whip him in the mouth when he tries to cast (mage slayer). And I shouldn't need to step within 5' to be a threat to him if he attacks my friend (sentinel).

The implication of using 5' in the above cases, rather than reach, is that I'm not actually using my whip to do any of those things. That begs the question of what I actually hit him with, and why it used my whip's damage die.

So, in addition to having to keep several kinds of reach in mind, my immersion is broken. I can't adequately explain what my player character is doing to the opponent, beyond saying, "I make an opportunity attack...somehow."

And I have to step within 5' of him to get opportunity attacks, meaning that I won't really get any benefit out of using a reach weapon without the polearm mastery feat, and even then will want to stay within 5' if I expect him to run. This means that reach weapons are not worth the reduced damage die. It basically takes away any benefit I would have had for using a reach weapon. Unless I'm in some extremely niche situation, such as standing behind a shield wall, I have no use for reach and am punished for using it with reduced damage die.

Basically, it limits martial options, breaks immersion, forces players to keep track of extra numbers, and is bad for the game.

[calebrus]

I should be able to strike someone from 10' away with a whip. I shouldn't have to step within 5' of him to hit him with it when he tries to run away (basic OA). I shouldn't have to be within 5' to whip him in the mouth when he tries to cast (mage slayer). And I shouldn't need to step within 5' to be a threat to him if he attacks my friend (sentinel).

The implication of using 5' in the above cases, rather than reach, is that I'm not actually using my whip to do any of those things. That begs the question of what I actually hit him with, and why it used my whip's damage die.

So, in addition to having to keep several kinds of reach in mind, my immersion is broken. I can't adequately explain what my player character is doing to the opponent, beyond saying, "I make an opportunity attack...somehow."

The idea of an opportunity attack is that an enemy is more concerned with getting some distance between him and you, and for a moment his defenses are lowered to do so. He leaves himself open for a moment to get himself into a better position. Once that gap is created, he can defend himself appropriately again.

Once again, this makes perfect sense to me, and to the other players at the table with me. My immersion is not broken, in fact it's upheld.

[Easy_Lee]

The idea of an opportunity attack is that an enemy is more concerned with getting some distance between him and you, and for a moment his defenses are lowered to do so. He leaves himself open for a moment to get himself into a better position. Once that gap is created, he can defend himself appropriately again.

How did you hit him with your dagger, then? Immersion = busted.

[calebrus]

How did you hit him with your dagger, then? Immersion = busted.

The same way that you hit him with your longsword.
Immersion = upheld.

You don't have to agree with it. The OP asked, and I answered.

[Easy_Lee]

The same way that you hit him with your longsword.
Immersion = upheld.

You don't have to agree with it. The OP asked, and I answered.

Opportunity attacks happen because you are a threat to someone. You threaten targets who run away, a mage slayer also threatens casters, and a polearm master also threatens people who approach.

In your mind, being able to reach a target with your weapon does not make you a threat to that person. A whip or polearm can threaten targets from no further away than a dagger, or even one's open hand. Reach is negated.

That is why your ruling is thoroughly bad both for immersion and for game balance. This is not an opinion so much as a simple observation.

[Kryx]

That's less a "here's what makes sense" or "here's what's simple" system, and more just justification for a strict reading of what we have. In addition to having to keep track of what "reach" actually means depending on the context, it devalues reach weapons significantly.
I agree with this and this is why I've been dissatisfied with my RAW ruling as well.

On the flip side of this situation a polearm wielder does not get an OA when a target walks 10 feet past the polearm wielder to hit his ally as they never leave his reach.

[Easy_Lee]

On the flip side of this situation a polearm wielder does not get an OA when a target walks 10 feet past the polearm wielder to hit his ally as they never leave his reach.

Right. The disadvantage to using reach weapons is that you're not necessarily able to line up opportunity attacks against targets that are too close. This makes some degree of sense, and I'm pretty happy to just avoid disadvantage in close quarters with most reach weapons.

[calebrus]

That is why your ruling is thoroughly bad both for immersion and for game balance. This is not an opinion so much as a simple observation. To quote you, "you don't have to agree with it;" the OP asked, and several of us answered.

And yet you continue to argue your side, as if you really want me to agree with it.
If you don't need me to agree, then you can stop trying to explain your viewpoint.

{scrubbed}

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, I'm stating my case for the benefit of other readers. I would never expect to convince anyone who disagrees with my points, as such things seldom happen in a debate. Calebrus, I think your point is valid by RAW, I am merely staying why I disagree with it.

If nothing else, treating reach as reach and opportunity attacks as opportunity attacks is so much simpler than strict RAW.

[coredump]

So you're fine with lance OAs always having disadvantage, and with polearm users not actually having reach when it comes to OAs? These are the exact same question. Nothing I am ruling effects Lance getting disadvantage, they are designed for horseback and are cumbersome when used up close. That is the rule, not my ruling.
Both of your questions hinge on Reach weapons and AoO.
All reach weapons (lance, halberd, doesn't matter) have reach when you are attacking with them. Since you are not yet attacking with them....
And to me it makes plenty of sense. And AoO is supposed to be a quick attack, a reaction that interrupts something. Making a 'quick reaction' attack at 10' doesn't make nearly as much sense as doing so at 5'.

So let me ask you one..
Since an AoO happens *before* the triggering action... your way means that Polearm Master lets you attack creatures that are 15' way. That doesn't make much sense to me.



If I was a new player, I would be very confused. .... keeping track of multiple values for "reach" feels very meta-gamey and unnecessary,
Don't see why it confuses you.... everyone's reach is 5' unless you are actively attacking with a reach weapon. Pretty straightforward. There are no more 'multiple values' than your way. In fact, my way removes the chance of 'reaching' 15' for an attack, so there are *fewer* ranges to worry about.

And it removes so many other issues. If I step back, I leave you an opening if you have a greatsword, but not if you have a halberd.... huh?
If you have a halberd I can dash in and out of the 5'-10' range all day and never leave an opening. But if you have a greatsword...blammo... I start leaving openings.... huh?

[calebrus]

And to me it makes plenty of sense. And AoO is supposed to be a quick attack, a reaction that interrupts something. Making a 'quick reaction' attack at 10' doesn't make nearly as much sense as doing so at 5'.

So let me ask you one..
Since an AoO happens *before* the triggering action... your way means that Polearm Master lets you attack creatures that are 15' way. That doesn't make much sense to me.

To be fair, a reaction does not interrupt anything.
You are reacting to something that happens. You can't interrupt as a reaction (unless it specifies otherwise, as an OA does).
OAs are an exception, because if you truly "reacted" to them moving away from you, then by the time the attack occurs the enemy is no longer in your reach, making an OA an impossibility.
So OAs happen before the trigger is resolved by necessity, or it would create a paradox.

[Vogonjeltz]

We haven't had a good Reach thread in about 5 months now. I've been waiting and hoping for an official Crawford ruling, but it looks like one will not come.

The intent of how these things would work together is obvious, so that's probably why there hasn't been a pot stirring thread in a while.

Also the thing you lable as "stretch armstrong" doesn't work that way. If it's conditional (which it is) then it would act as a boolean operator, so it could not be permanent. Just a heads up.

[coredump]

, it devalues reach weapons significantly. No, it only 'devalues' them based on how *you* think they should work.

To me, and OA is a quick reaction attack, you see an opening and you take a shot. Works for mace, or greatsword, or halberd.
*IN ADDITION* a halberd gets to attack creatures that are 10' away. Can't do that with a mace nor a greatsword. That is its value....


I should be able to strike someone from 10' away with a whip. I shouldn't have to step within 5' of him to hit him with it when he tries to run away (basic OA). I shouldn't have to be within 5' to whip him in the mouth when he tries to cast (mage slayer). And I shouldn't need to step within 5' to be a threat to him if he attacks my friend (sentinel). That is a lot of 'shoulds'... and I understand that you would like the rules to work that way. Heck, I think it "should" take less time to put on/off armor.
Mage Slayer says nothing about OA or reach, it explicitly and specifically gives a range of 5'. Again, it is a quick reaction attack which isn't available at longer distances. The wording of MS seems to reinforce my interpretation of what is happening during an OA.
Sentinel also says nothing about OA or reach, it also explicitly gives a range of 5'. The wording that allows OA makes perfect sense with my interpretation.... it becomes non-sensical with your interpretation.


So, in addition to having to keep several kinds of reach in mind, my immersion is broken. I can't adequately explain what my player character is doing to the opponent, beyond saying, "I make an opportunity attack...somehow." c'mon.... "several kinds of reach"?? There is one kind, the PC has a reach of 5'. Some weapons allow for attacks at 10'. Pretty simple.
You 'explain' it the same way. The same thing that allowed the GS fighter OA allows the Halberd fighter to OA.
As for 'immersion:
DM: The bad guy is moving away, and leaves a small opening. Bob, you can take an OA.
Tom: Wait, why can't I attack his opening?
DM: Because you have a halberd, so you can't attack that opening, Bob has a greatsword, so he can.

Yeah, because that makes sense....



And I have to step within 5' of him to get opportunity attacks, meaning that I won't really get any benefit out of using a reach weapon without the polearm mastery feat, and even then will want to stay within 5' if I expect him to run. This means that reach weapons are not worth the reduced damage die. It basically takes away any benefit I would have had for using a reach weapon. Unless I'm in some extremely niche situation, such as standing behind a shield wall, I have no use for reach and am punished for using it with reduced damage die.
You still get to make OA attacks like every other weapon
AND you get to attack from 10' away.
AND you can take PAM for an extra attack and allow for incoming OA

If attacking from 10' away isn't worth it to you, then don't use the weapon. But please stop acting like Reach is worthless otherwise.

[Kryx]

The intent of how these things would work together is obvious, so that's probably why there hasn't been a pot stirring thread in a while.
It's not obvious at all. Mearls posted an opinion which differs from Crawford's RAW ruling. And the RAW ruling has several issues as outline by Lee.

[Easy_Lee]

It's not obvious at all. Mearls posted an opinion which differs from Crawford's RAW ruling. And the RAW ruling has several issues as outline by Lee.

Yeah. I think the whole thing is a bit funny, to be honest, which is why I like to mention the Stretch Armstrong thing.

[coredump]

Opportunity attacks happen because you are a threat to someone. You threaten targets who run away, a mage slayer also threatens casters, and a polearm master also threatens people who approach. There is nothing in the rules to support your claim.
In fact, it strongly implies that the OA happens because the target "drops their guard". You can avoid it by using a 'disengage'.... IOW you take care to not drop your guard.


In your mind, being able to reach a target with your weapon does not make you a threat to that person. A whip or polearm can threaten targets from no further away than a dagger, or even one's open hand. Reach is negated. You are trying to change the conversation to be about 'threatened'...but that isn't the issue.

[Easy_Lee]

There is nothing in the rules to support your claim.
In fact, it strongly implies that the OA happens because the target "drops their guard". You can avoid it by using a 'disengage'.... IOW you take care to not drop your guard.

You are trying to change the conversation to be about 'threatened'...but that isn't the issue.

In the free PDF, it specifically mentions "dropping your guard," moving "heedlessly" past any enemy, "provoking" an opportunity attack, and "reach." Basic OAs are one of the things that specifically mention "reach," rather than "within 5'", which is why most players do indeed use reach for them rather than a static 5' range.

My approach is to simply use consistent terms in all cases. My priorities are simplicity, consistency, immersion, and depth of play (meaningful strategy). If you have other priorities, such as preventing or discouraging the polearm mastery / sentinel combo, then my ruling may not be right for you.

Though, if reach is a problem, or you do not wish to deal with it, you might simply say that reach weapons do not exist in your setting. This was the FR approach to firearms, and Steven Brust's approach to bows for the sake of his Dragaera setting.

[coredump]

Right. The disadvantage to using reach weapons is that you're not necessarily able to line up opportunity attacks against targets that are too close. This makes some degree of sense, and I'm pretty happy to just avoid disadvantage in close quarters with most reach weapons.

You are devaluing reach weapons, and Blowing immersion!!

[coredump]

To be fair, a reaction does not interrupt anything.
You are reacting to something that happens. You can't interrupt as a reaction (unless it specifies otherwise, as an OA does).
OAs are an exception, because if you truly "reacted" to them moving away from you, then by the time the attack occurs the enemy is no longer in your reach, making an OA an impossibility.
So OAs happen before the trigger is resolved by necessity, or it would create a paradox.

You realize you agreed with everything I said... or at least what you wrote doesn't contradict anything I said.

[coredump]

In the free PDF, it specifically mentions "dropping your guard," moving "heedlessly" past any enemy, "provoking" an opportunity attack, and "reach." Basic OAs are one of the things that specifically mention "reach," rather than "within 5'", which is why most players do indeed use reach for them rather than a static 5' range. Yes, and *none* of that supports your claim that you get an OA "because you threaten" somebody. As you quoted, you get them because someone is being careless and dropping their guard.


My approach is to simply use consistent terms in all cases. My priorities are simplicity, consistency, immersion, and depth of play (meaningful strategy). If you have other priorities, such as preventing or discouraging the polearm mastery / sentinel combo, then my ruling may not be right for you. Ah yes... instead of addressing the argument, try and impugn the other persons intentions.... Ad Hom much?
I also like consistency. So *Everyone* has reach of 5', regardless of what weapon. So everyone gets OAs at the same time, regardless of weapon. Reach weapons don't miraculously get to attack people 15' away.

[Kryx]

I know this is a forum and somehow you think you're going to "win the debate", but please stop arguing with personal attacks against their character or other generally insulting nonsense. Use rules or opinions on the rules. No need to be a ****.

[Easy_Lee]

Ah yes... instead of addressing the argument, try and impugn the other persons intentions.... Ad Hom much?
I also like consistency. So *Everyone* has reach of 5', regardless of what weapon. So everyone gets OAs at the same time, regardless of weapon. Reach weapons don't miraculously get to attack people 15' away.

Actually, I meant to point out a potential downside to my own ruling. The polearm mastery + sentinel combination is powerful, and strengthens the already-powerful ambush-and-kite playstyle. I can absolutely see some DMs wanting to avoid this particular trick, if their players abuse it. That's why I suggested the possibility of simply saying reach weapons are not part of your setting, for those DMs who want to avoid any potential complications with them.

Why ban instead of nerf? Well, as an example, consider a setting with atomic bombs. An atomic bomb, by all rights, ought to be an extremely powerful weapon. In fact, I can't think of a single way of dealing with an opponent capable of setting one off. If I wanted to nerf them, I might perhaps grant everyone a reflex save to jump into the nearest refrigerator. Or, I could simply say that atomic bombs are not part of my setting, if I feel that they are too powerful in comparison to other weapon choices.

I hope that makes my position clear. I do not intend to offend.

[AmbientRaven]

Ruling on reach in my game

Sentinel: Expands to 10ft range, but, you cant attack through an ally.
War caster: Does not work with Reach/Poel Master AoO's
AoO's: Performed at 10ft, no AoO's at 5ft for moving into range, only 10ft.

[coredump]

I was more addressing how you staked out "simplicity, consistency, immersion, and depth of play (meaningful strategy)" and thus relegated any dissenting opinion to only trying to 'nerf' some combo.

I have given a number of reasons why I feel my interpretation is simpler, more consistent, and more immersive.



I hope that makes my position clear. I do not intend to offend.
Accepted. Thank you.

[ChubbyRain]

I rule that reach applies at all time, thus OA and whenever else reach would come into play outside the attack action.

I also rule, and I forgot about this on the house rule thread, that if you leave the 5' reach of someone with a polearm you take an OA. This prevents creatures from having more room to move around a polearm creature. If the can attack normally at 5' they should be able to OA at 5'.

So a monster is standing 5' from a PC with a reach weapon and another PC with a longsword. The monster moves away 5' and from both of them on its turn and provokes an OA from both. A round goes by and the creature is 10' away from both PCs (perhaps they are grappled) and the monster moves away again. The PC with the reach weapon would get another OA.

[Easy_Lee]

The PC with the reach weapon would get another OA.

Do you follow the one reaction / round rule? So far as I know, there is no way to get two.

[ChubbyRain]

Do you follow the one reaction / round rule? So far as I know, there is no way to get two.

A round went by.

[Easy_Lee]

A round went by.

Ah, got it, misread.

[Gwendol]

I rule that increased reach means just that. It extends the threat range for OA's, whirlwind, mage slayer, etc.

[AgentPaper]

It really seems pretty clear cut how it works by RAW. You have reach of 5 feet. If you have a reach weapon, you can attack someone from further away, but once you're done attacking you threaten the same area as anyone else.

For me, this makes sense from both a mechanical and rp perspective. Just because you're holding a 10 foot pike doesn't mean that you're suddenly able to whip it around and catch anyone's openings from that far away. Attacking someone from that far requires commitment to the attack, so it isn't something you can just do in response to a half second opening like you can with a much smaller weapon.

From a mechanical standpoint, it would be odd for a polearm user to get less OoAs than someone without a reach weapon, and it keeps things consistent with all the feats and such. You get the polearm master attack when someone moves from 10 feet away to 5 feet away. Makes sense, they try to get close, you poke them on the way in.

[Talderas]

So a monster is standing 5' from a PC with a reach weapon and another PC with a longsword. The monster moves away 5' and from both of them on its turn and provokes an OA from both. A round goes by and the creature is 10' away from both PCs (perhaps they are grappled) and the monster moves away again. The PC with the reach weapon would get another OA.

A lot of the shenanigans with 3.5 involved the fact that each square you threatened was treated independently for the purpose of movement provoking attacks of opportunity. This lead to the overwhelming superiority of reach weapons in comparison to all other types of melee weapons. 5th edition eliminated that particular issue by instead treating each square you can reach as one whole area and opportunity attacks or provoked only as you leave this area. What you're proposing is moving closer to the broken 3.5 system by giving reach weapons two fields, rather than one, which can provoke.

[Easy_Lee]

A lot of the shenanigans with 3.5 involved the fact that each square you threatened was treated independently for the purpose of movement provoking attacks of opportunity. This lead to the overwhelming superiority of reach weapons in comparison to all other types of melee weapons. 5th edition eliminated that particular issue by instead treating each square you can reach as one whole area and opportunity attacks or provoked only as you leave this area. What you're proposing is moving closer to the broken 3.5 system by giving reach weapons two fields, rather than one, which can provoke.

Actually the reason why reach weapons were "OP," insofar as any non-caster option could be considered OP, was because players could get lots and lots of opportunity attacks each round. 5e only allows for one, and with the wording of sneak attack being the way it is, I doubt that we'll get any official feats that change that. Even if one's reach was infinite and sneezing provoked an OA, the hard limit on reactions still prevents more than a one attack / round increase in damage.

[Talderas]

Actually the reason why reach weapons were "OP," insofar as any non-caster option could be considered OP, was because players could get lots and lots of opportunity attacks each round. 5e only allows for one, and with the wording of sneak attack being the way it is, I doubt that we'll get any official feats that change that. Even if one's reach was infinite and sneezing provoked an OA, the hard limit on reactions still prevents more than a one attack / round increase in damage.

Combat reflexes was not the feat that made it OP. It wasn't even the slightest bit required to pull the trick off. Improved trip was the feat that made them stupidly overpowered combined with the fact that they were two-handed weapons.

You only needed a single attack of opportunity. Standing up from prone required its own movement action rather than taking a number of feet of movement. So you move from the 10ft out to 5ft, which provokes an attack of opportunity, which was used for a trip, which ended your movement 10ft away from your target. You could use your standard action as a move action to stand up. If the tripper didn't have combat reflexes you stand, otherwise he could attack and trip you again. Even if you did stand up, on his turn he would just attack and trip you yet again. Meanwhile he hasn't lost any damage potential in order to lock you down.

Alternatively he could run up to you and trip you, not losing any damage potential. Then on your turn you attempt to stand up and he uses his AoO to put you back on the ground, forcing you to use your standard action as a move action to try standing up again.

[ChubbyRain]

A lot of the shenanigans with 3.5 involved the fact that each square you threatened was treated independently for the purpose of movement provoking attacks of opportunity. This lead to the overwhelming superiority of reach weapons in comparison to all other types of melee weapons. 5th edition eliminated that particular issue by instead treating each square you can reach as one whole area and opportunity attacks or provoked only as you leave this area. What you're proposing is moving closer to the broken 3.5 system by giving reach weapons two fields, rather than one, which can provoke.


Not at all.

First off 5e gives you 1 reaction per round. All this does is allows someone who normally can attack 5' away to take an OA the same way as they would if they were holding a non-reach weapon or a reach weapon. If you are holding a reach weapon then you can also make an OA if the creature is 10' away and moves away, that's the perk of having a reach weapon.

Within the game, saying that you can attack at 5' without any problems but can't OA that close is a bit silly. D&D is a silly game but this silliness shouldn't be detrimental to players.

Player Jed with a reach weapon wants to defend a hallway that is one squares (5' wide) so Jed stands there. Normally only one creatures will be able to get in melee attacks and others will have to pile behind or throw a lesser attack (ranged) at the player. However because Jed has a reach weapon that first enemy may move in, attack, and then back up 5' for free so another enemy can get in there to attack.

If Jed had a longsword, a weapon that can attack only 5' away, then that enemy would have provoked. But because Jed is using a reach weapon, one that usually have no issues attacking 5' away, both enemies can get the attacks in. Hell, the first enemy can stand still because the second enemy can move into that spot, attack, and then move back 5'.

With the current rules you are screwing over reach weapons. There is no reason in game that they shouldn't treat their OA the same as everyone else.

Now I'm not saying that you can't dance around the PC/enemies. You can still stay in that "inner ring" mind you, you just can't leave it without provoking OA.

So while a normal weapon has a "ring" around them that is 5' away a reach weapon has two "rings" around them. The first is 5' away and the second is 10' away.

This is one of the things that is easier to explain in person. Or at least if I had a diagram.

And really it wasn't broken in 3e, OA were one of the few ways to make a really good martial. If you want to see broken in 3e then look at the casters because asters could shut down the OA Warrior types with no problem. And even if it can be considered broken then really it is just par for that course.

Anyways, there is no in game reason to use the current system. It doesn't make sense within the game rules at all and makes a particular fighting style way more dangerous than it needs to be. Do note you still only get 1 OA a round (though one way to help martials is to give more OA at higher levels).

[Easy_Lee]

Combat reflexes was not the feat that made it OP. It wasn't even the slightest bit required to pull the trick off. Improved trip was the feat that made them stupidly overpowered combined with the fact that they were two-handed weapons.

You only needed a single attack of opportunity. Standing up from prone required its own movement action rather than taking a number of feet of movement. So you move from the 10ft out to 5ft, which provokes an attack of opportunity, which was used for a trip, which ended your movement 10ft away from your target. You could use your standard action as a move action to stand up. If the tripper didn't have combat reflexes you stand, otherwise he could attack and trip you again. Even if you did stand up, on his turn he would just attack and trip you yet again. Meanwhile he hasn't lost any damage potential in order to lock you down.

Alternatively he could run up to you and trip you, not losing any damage potential. Then on your turn you attempt to stand up and he uses his AoO to put you back on the ground, forcing you to use your standard action as a move action to try standing up again.

Well, all of this and the full attack action not allowing a move made reach weapons great in 3.5, with the spiked chain being a favorite of many. IIRC it only took about four levels to really get the tactic going. But combat reflexes just let you do it to several targets at once. Otherwise, one player locking down one target is not terribly OP.

But reach weapons are not as strong now as then for a wide variety of reasons. Being able to move and attack, only getting one reaction and having fewer things that provoke it, no 5' step for "free" disengage, and other factors make reach weapons just a good option, rather than the best in all cases.

[Talderas]

Well, all of this and the full attack action not allowing a move made reach weapons great in 3.5, with the spiked chain being a favorite of many. IIRC it only took about four levels to really get the tactic going. But combat reflexes just let you do it to several targets at once. Otherwise, one player locking down one target is not terribly OP.

But reach weapons are not as strong now as then for a wide variety of reasons. Being able to move and attack, only getting one reaction and having fewer things that provoke it, no 5' step for "free" disengage, and other factors make reach weapons just a good option, rather than the best in all cases.

Spike chain was preferred because it could also be used to attack adjacent squares while most reach weapons could only attack squares that were 10' away.

On the whole, reach weapons are stronger than in 3.5 because you can attack adjacent and 10ft away.

[Easy_Lee]

Spike chain was preferred because it could also be used to attack adjacent squares while most reach weapons could only attack squares that were 10' away.

On the whole, reach weapons are stronger than in 3.5 because you can attack adjacent and 10ft away.

Wow, I guess we're ignoring all of the other things that made reach weapons great in 3.5 and which weren't carried over, like having feats and multiple size increases to expand one's threatened squares to an entire ballroom.

No, reach weapons can attack from farther away, and the disadvantage is that you have a larger area around yourself within which foes can maneuver freely and reach weapons do less damage per attack. You can take feats that work well with reach weapons, just as feats exist specifically for finesse weapons, bows, and great weapons. And most classes don't even have proficiency with reach weapons to start with. They're pretty balanced.

[coredump]

Just a request.... can we ignore how good/bad/different reach weapons were in other editions? It really doesn't effect anything here, and it just creates more issues to argue about.

[Talderas]

Wow, I guess we're ignoring all of the other things that made reach weapons great in 3.5 and which weren't carried over, like having feats and multiple size increases to expand one's threatened squares to an entire ballroom.

Yes, I completely ignored it all of what you wrote.


A lot of the shenanigans with 3.5 involved the fact that each square you threatened was treated independently for the purpose of movement provoking attacks of opportunity. This lead to the overwhelming superiority of reach weapons in comparison to all other types of melee weapons.

Everything you are suggesting has it's foundational aspects built on that particular system of threat. The reach weapons necessitated using specific tactics and feats which were overwhelmingly more powerful than other melee options while simultaneously being punishing to the user for failing to elect those options. That design choice is not present in 5th edition and due to not having the weakness of 3rd edition reach weapons 5th edition reach weapons have been buffed. They are no longer a trap for new players who lack the system mastery to select and use those weapons nor do the weapons have any sort of overwhelming superiority due to extension splatwork or feats. Given a random assortment of players with varying levels of system mastery we're going to see a higher average performance in 5th edition with a higher performance floor and lower performance ceiling.

Spike chain was favored precisely because you got all the benefits of a reach weapon while still being able to attack foes adjacent to you.

[ChubbyRain]

You know what this makes me miss? Spiked gauntlets! Spiked gauntlets were a great item to pair with a reach weapon. Especially .magical awesome spiked gauntlets.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's not obvious at all. Mearls posted an opinion which differs from Crawford's RAW ruling. And the RAW ruling has several issues as outline by Lee.

Yeah. I think the whole thing is a bit funny, to be honest, which is why I like to mention the Stretch Armstrong thing.

Yes, that's exactly my point. Do you really think that's remotely intentional? Why do you think they would intend that?

Try putting two people next to each other. Why would you think that because you can hit them with a 10 foot long polearm you can now hit them from 10 feet away with your hands? Why do you think the designers would deliberately make the game function that way?

The obvious answer is that the intended reading is the one that doesn't pervert the laws of physics for normal activity and make a mockery of the English language in the process.

Also, you're inserting the word permanently where it is not to be found, so your reading is flawed on that basis alone.

[Easy_Lee]

Also, you're inserting the word permanently where it is not to be found, so your reading is flawed on that basis alone.

Well, the text says that reach increases when you attack with the weapon. It does not say that your reach ever goes back down. That's where the stretch thing comes from; we have to assume that it's a temporary thing.

[Kryx]

Yes, that's exactly my point. Do you really think that's remotely intentional? Why do you think they would intend that?
It's impossible to say what the devs intended as they will not comment on it so far.

Regarding stretch armstrong: It's an example that no sane person would try to push for, but there are legitimate inconsistencies & problems with reach that should be solved by the devs.

[Easy_Lee]

Regarding stretch armstrong: It's an example that no sane person would try to push for, but there are legitimate inconsistencies & problems with reach that should be solved by the devs.

Right. The stretch thing is useful to show that the reach rules in general were not fully polished. The fact that devs have disagreed on them further strengthens this point.

[coredump]

Right. The stretch thing is useful to show that the reach rules in general were not fully polished. The fact that devs have disagreed on them further strengthens this point.

At strongly disagree. The 'stretch thing' is, at best, a funny little 'haha' about how we can twist and deform obvious things into something completely unreasonable. It proves nothing at all about being unpolished.

The Devs didn't necessarily disagree on the rules.... they disagree on the purpose of the Dev tweets. Mearls feels the Tweets should be for personal interpretations and opinions on how he would (or might) run his personal games. Crawford feels the tweets should be for discussing the RAW of the game.

There are some Reach related issues that should be cleared up, but lets not get carried away.

[Sindeloke]

[....] I basically default to the 3.5 reach rules. 5 ft spaces exist. Opportunity Attacks occur when an enemy within your Reach moves outside of a space you threaten. Reach weapons add 5 feet to your reach. Abilities/Feats that work with weapons (Whirlwind Attack, Mage Slayer, Sentinel, Polearm Master, etc) have a range equal to your Reach.

This is my general philosophy. Anywhere the game says "within 5 feet" becomes "within your threatened area." Reach weapons "increase the radius of your threatened area by 5 feet" while wielded. You can't threaten what you can't perceive.

Polearm Mastery is a slightly special case. I don't think the feat is intended to allow you to attack something 15 feet away under any circumstances. It's my strong impression that the entire point of the extra OA condition is to let you use your superior reach to attack someone who's closing with you before they can attack you. You know, like a real-world pole weapon is for. Ergo, I remove the whole problematic "reach" thing entirely and just have that bullet point as "when an enemy you threaten moves closer to you you get an OA." Thus, a foe at 15' who closes to 10' provokes only once he reaches the 10' mark and keeps moving forward to 9'. It's a subtle point, but relevant when used in combination with Sentinel or against an enemy who also has a pole weapon. A foe with a polearm who closes to 10', stops, and attacks with her own weapon doesn't provoke, for example, and a foe with a longsword who charges in from 15' away gets brought to a stop by Sentinel two squares away on the grid, rather than the third. (If he started at 10' away and tried to close to 5', he could be stopped before he moved, and would still be stuck two squares out.)

[LordVonDerp]

And to me it makes plenty of sense. And AoO is supposed to be a quick attack, a reaction that interrupts something. Making a 'quick reaction' attack at 10' doesn't make nearly as much sense as doing so at 5'.




And it removes so many other issues. If I step back, I leave you an opening if you have a greatsword, but not if you have a halberd.... huh?
If you have a halberd I can dash in and out of the 5'-10' range all day and never leave an opening. But if you have a greatsword...blammo... I start leaving openings.... huh?

These "issues" you mention are all evidence that the polearm rules are doing a good job of approximating reality.

It's much easier to make a quick attack with a polearm if your opponent is near the end of your reach, that's where the blade/point/hammer is after all.

[CNagy]

I don't see the problem with Polearm Master. It specifically states that creatures provoke an AoO when they enter your reach. I know the grid isn't the default system anymore, but it doesn't help to imagine a creature standing *at* 10 ft: they are either inside (0-10ft away) or outside (10-15ft away) your reach. Once they enter (enter being the operative word) you get an AoO. Now they are inside your 10ft reach, and you do not get another AoO if they move closer the next round because they are not entering your reach, they are approaching you from inside your reach. Someone with a polearm who wants to be able to attack you with it has to move until you are within their reach--if you've also got a polearm and Polearm Master, them putting you in their reach means they moved into your reach and provoke an AoO.


Polearms are not meant to be objectively better weapons. They have their pros and cons. Pro: you get reach. Con: enemies have more room to move in your reach without provoking an AoO. Edit: But for people who think it doesn't make sense, I suggest that if they want to add realism to their game then they should do what people really did when the fighting got face-to-face: they dropped their polearm and drew a weapon suitable for hand to hand combat.

[coredump]

These "issues" you mention are all evidence that the polearm rules are doing a good job of approximating reality.

It's much easier to make a quick attack with a polearm if your opponent is near the end of your reach, that's where the blade/point/hammer is after all.

Sorry, but that is not true at all. Holding the end at range makes it much slower to move around. Holding it choked up lets you move it much more quickly. Its an easy experiment to run, all you need is a long pole with a weight on the end.

[coredump]

I don't see the problem with Polearm Master. It specifically states that creatures provoke an AoO when they enter your reach. .... Once they enter (enter being the operative word) you get an AoO. Now they are inside your 10ft reach, and you do not get another AoO if they move closer the next round because they are not entering your reach, they are approaching you from inside your reach.

OAs don't work that way. An OA triggers *before* the triggering action. So in this case, the OA would trigger *before* the attacker moves within 10'.
This is why standard OAs work, because the target is still within 5' when the OA triggers.

[calebrus]

Sorry, but that is not true at all. Holding the end at range makes it much slower to move around. Holding it choked up lets you move it much more quickly. Its an easy experiment to run, all you need is a long pole with a weight on the end.

Which is why my interpretation makes sense to me.
Set for a charge when they enter your reach. Regular OA threat range the rest of the time, just like any other weapon.

[CNagy]

OAs don't work that way. An OA triggers *before* the triggering action. So in this case, the OA would trigger *before* the attacker moves within 10'.
This is why standard OAs work, because the target is still within 5' when the OA triggers.

Specific beats general. Polearm Master specifies that you have an additional trigger for an OA: when someone enters your reach and you are holding a polearm. Not "attempts to enter reach," which would be the case if OA were preemptive rather than reactive.

And the wording for Opportunity Attack is "interrupts the provoking creature's movement, right before the creature leaves your reach." Not before the triggering action but during it, interrupting it as soon as the conditions are met. The reason this works is because creatures are not 2-dimensional, hopping in 5' increments.

[Sindeloke]

Polearms are not meant to be objectively better weapons. They have their pros and cons. Pro: you get reach. Con: enemies have more room to move in your reach without provoking an AoO.

Incorrect.

Pro: You get reach.
Con: Your damage die is one size lower than it otherwise would be.

If reach is not, in and of itself with no other considerations, a net positive for a character, reach weapons are mechanically deficient and should never be used when a greatsword is available.

Or to put it more actively, if reach is just as much of a con for a pole weapon user as it is a pro, either the way reach functions needs to be adjusted, or the damage of reach weapons needs to increase to 1d12/2d6.

[Mr.Moron]

Incorrect.

Pro: You get reach.
Con: Your damage die is one size lower than it otherwise would be.

If reach is not, in and of itself with no other considerations, a net positive for a character, reach weapons are mechanically deficient and should never be used when a greatsword is available.

Or to put it more actively, if reach is just as much of a con for a pole weapon user as it is a pro, either the way reach functions needs to be adjusted, or the damage of reach weapons needs to increase to 1d12/2d6.

What if the creators saw it like this?

Reach:
Pro: Longer range on active attacks (+2)
Con: Larger area for opponents move in (-1)
Con: Smaller damage die (-1)

It's certainly a possibility. I'm not sure the conclusions you reach here are as self-evident as your post seems to try to imply they are.

[LordVonDerp]

Sorry, but that is not true at all. Holding the end at range makes it much slower to move around. Holding it choked up lets you move it much more quickly. Its an easy experiment to run, all you need is a long pole with a weight on the end.
-"holding the end at range makes it much slower to move around"
depends on the weapon, for spears the rotational inertia is largely irrelevant, for everything else look below.

-"Holding it choked up lets you move it much more quickly."
holding a halberd or glaive choked up means you strike with less power. However, since DnD characters hit with the same power at 5 feet as they do at 10, we can safely say the rules aren't trying to simulate that. We can however safely say that they are trying to simulate the unwieldiness of polearms at close range.


any thoughts on any of the other "issues" you were having?

[coredump]

Specific beats general. Polearm Master specifies that you have an additional trigger for an OA: when someone enters your reach and you are holding a polearm. Not "attempts to enter reach," which would be the case if OA were preemptive rather than reactive. there is not conflict here.
The PAM feat gives a trigger of "entering your reach"
The OA rules say that the attack happens *before* the trigger


And the wording for Opportunity Attack is "interrupts the provoking creature's movement, right before the creature leaves your reach." Not before the triggering action but during it, interrupting it as soon as the conditions are met. The reason this works is because creatures are not 2-dimensional, hopping in 5' increments.
The triggering action is "moves out of your reach"
The attack happens "right before the creature leaves your reach"
It is very explicit that the attack happens before the trigger. I mean it says so right in the rules.

[CNagy]

Incorrect.

Pro: You get reach.
Con: Your damage die is one size lower than it otherwise would be.

If reach is not, in and of itself with no other considerations, a net positive for a character, reach weapons are mechanically deficient and should never be used when a greatsword is available.

Or to put it more actively, if reach is just as much of a con for a pole weapon user as it is a pro, either the way reach functions needs to be adjusted, or the damage of reach weapons needs to increase to 1d12/2d6.

Why would reach not be a net positive in and of itself? This isn't earlier editions where your reach moves outward with pole weapons, creating a troublesome area directly next to you where the weapon is clumsy--reach simply expands the area in which you are a threat. Whether you say you readjust your grip or explain it some other way, polearms do the same damage up close that they do at the end of their reach. A greatsword deals better damage but a polearm allows you to attack enemies you might otherwise not be able to, and it allows you to attack some enemies without putting yourself in range of their melee attacks.

[CNagy]

there is not conflict here.
The PAM feat gives a trigger of "entering your reach"
The OA rules say that the attack happens *before* the trigger


The triggering action is "moves out of your reach"
The attack happens "right before the creature leaves your reach"
It is very explicit that the attack happens before the trigger. I mean it says so right in the rules.

You're giving mechanics a narrative. Everyone at the table knows that a monster is moving out of reach before it actually moves out of reach because the DM will say "take an Opportunity Attack." They know this before the creature technically starts its movement. But that's different from how the action resolves; it explicitly says it "interrupts" the movement that triggers it. This isn't old school Magic: The Gathering, where an Interrupt physically occurred before the event it was interrupting. The defining feature of an interruption is that it occurs in the middle of whatever it is interrupting.

You're treating the fact that the DM gives you a headsup that an OA will occur as the same as seeing into the future with your character, traveling back in time, and attacking the creature before it fulfills the conditions of the OA. And if the OA were worded differently, I would say that sure, RAW could be used to weirdly interpret it that way--but the book spells out exactly when the attack occurs, not before the action that triggers it (I could move all throughout your threat range then leave, triggering an attack, and you're not going to travel back in time to attack me before I started my movement, and I'm not taking Action: Move out of Reach when I decide to leave your threat), but simultaneously--the moment your target is at the end of your reach, with DM knowledge that the creature is going to continue moving out of reach.

[coredump]

-"holding the end at range makes it much slower to move around"
depends on the weapon, for spears the rotational inertia is largely irrelevant, for everything else look below.
It still matters. If you choke up, even a spear will be much faster than if trying to hold it at full range.
Of course, a spear is not a reach weapon, but I assume you are referring to a pike. (If it were up to me, the pike would have the same rules as the lance, but whatever)


-"Holding it choked up lets you move it much more quickly."
holding a halberd or glaive choked up means you strike with less power. However, since DnD characters hit with the same power at 5 feet as they do at 10, we can safely say the rules aren't trying to simulate that. We can however safely say that they are trying to simulate the unwieldiness of polearms at close range.Um.... polearms are plenty effective at close range and are not unweildy; and they don't have less power when you choke up. Granted, if you had the time and situation to treat the weapon like a baseball bat, then full extension allows for the most power....but that isn't a normal situation in a fight, and *definitely* not the situation for any OAs.

[coredump]

You're giving mechanics a narrative. Everyone at the table knows that a monster is moving out of reach before it actually moves out of reach because the DM will say "take an Opportunity Attack." They know this before the creature technically starts its movement. But that's different from how the action resolves; it explicitly says it "interrupts" the movement that triggers it. This isn't old school Magic: The Gathering, where an Interrupt physically occurred before the event it was interrupting. The defining feature of an interruption is that it occurs in the middle of whatever it is interrupting.

You're treating the fact that the DM gives you a headsup that an OA will occur as the same as seeing into the future with your character, traveling back in time, and attacking the creature before it fulfills the conditions of the OA. And if the OA were worded differently, I would say that sure, RAW could be used to weirdly interpret it that way--but the book spells out exactly when the attack occurs, not before the action that triggers it (I could move all throughout your threat range then leave, triggering an attack, and you're not going to travel back in time to attack me before I started my movement, and I'm not taking Action: Move out of Reach when I decide to leave your threat), but simultaneously--the moment your target is at the end of your reach, with DM knowledge that the creature is going to continue moving out of reach.Dude, I have not been making this up, I have been *quoting the rules*.
This has *nothing* to do with a DM 'heads-up', it has *nothing* to do with creating a narrative. It is coming straight out of the rules.... they are pretty explicit.

Lets look at exactly what the rules explicitly say.

The Trigger is when an enemy "moves out of your reach" (that is a direct quote from the rules)
The attack happens "right before the creature leaves your reach" (again, a direct quote from the rules.

This is not a 'heads up' this is not a 'narrative'. The rules explicitly state that the attack happens before the trigger. This has even been restated by Crawford as the way it is meant to work.


I have no idea why you talk about "going back in time before I started my movement".... starting your movement has nothing to do with the trigger nor the attack. Perhaps you meant something else.

[CNagy]

Then the normal OA needs a rewrite to spell it out. The attack occurs before leaving your reach, the trigger for the attack is actually leaving reach--hence my reference to time travel. A creature gets outside your reach in order to trigger the attack, but then the attack occurs before it ever left reach? Mechanically. Stuff has to occur in an order and "leaves reach" is a less messy trigger than "intends to leave reach" or anything similar.

That said, Polearm Master *is* an exception to OA rules. The attack does not happen before they enter your reach but once they are inside of it.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502917024834539521

[Easy_Lee]

Then the normal OA needs a rewrite to spell it out. The attack occurs before leaving your reach, the trigger for the attack is actually leaving reach--hence my reference to time travel. A creature gets outside your reach in order to trigger the attack, but then the attack occurs before it ever left reach? Mechanically. Stuff has to occur in an order and "leaves reach" is a less messy trigger than "intends to leave reach" or anything similar.

That said, Polearm Master *is* an exception to OA rules. The attack does not happen before they enter your reach but once they are inside of it.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502917024834539521

We can probably simplify it by saying that "attacks of opportunity happen while the target is within your reach, and occur before the target can move any further."

[coredump]

Then the normal OA needs a rewrite to spell it out. The attack occurs before leaving your reach, the trigger for the attack is actually leaving reach--hence my reference to time travel. A creature gets outside your reach in order to trigger the attack, but then the attack occurs before it ever left reach? Mechanically. Stuff has to occur in an order and "leaves reach" is a less messy trigger than "intends to leave reach" or anything similar. I didn't write the rules.
But to have the attack go after the trigger means you are hitting people 10' away with your mace.
I suppose the precisely correct way to word the rule would have made the trigger "beginning to leave your reach" or whatever.... but that just starts getting messy.


That said, Polearm Master *is* an exception to OA rules. The attack does not happen before they enter your reach but once they are inside of it.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/502917024834539521Yes, which is why it makes sense to get the attack when they are moving from 10' away to 5' away. They are entering your range, which triggers the OA, when attacking with the halberd, them being 10' away puts them in weapons range.

And don't forget that the part he was answering to mentioned it not working until the person was entering the 5' reach.

And don't forget his other tweet
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/polearm-reach/

Seems to be pretty straightforward in that one.

[LordVonDerp]

It still matters. If you choke up, even a spear will be much faster than if trying to hold it at full range.
Of course, a spear is not a reach weapon, but I assume you are referring to a pike. (If it were up to me, the pike would have the same rules as the lance, but whatever)

Um.... polearms are plenty effective at close range and are not unweildy; and they don't have less power when you choke up. Granted, if you had the time and situation to treat the weapon like a baseball bat, then full extension allows for the most power....but that isn't a normal situation in a fight, and *definitely* not the situation for any OAs.

You have successfully demonstrated that you understand neither physics nor European martial arts nor the definition of a spear

Nor do you understand the definition of a pike as that has a reach of 20-30 feet and is even less suited for close range combat.

[DivisibleByZero]

There is no need to change the wording of any of the descriptions. Just rule the way that makes sense to you.

[LordVonDerp]

I didn't write the rules.
But to have the attack go after the trigger means you are hitting people 10' away with your mace.
I suppose the precisely correct way to word the rule would have made the trigger "beginning to leave your reach" or whatever.... but that just starts getting messy.

Yes, which is why it makes sense to get the attack when they are moving from 10' away to 5' away. They are entering your range, which triggers the OA, when attacking with the halberd, them being 10' away puts them in weapons range.

And don't forget that the part he was answering to mentioned it not working until the person was entering the 5' reach.

And don't forget his other tweet
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/02/polearm-reach/

Seems to be pretty straightforward in that one.

I'm just going to put a link to the rest of that tweet conversation here:

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/502915797488906240

and then put a quote here:
"Yes, OA (an attack) is based on your reach with the weapon you're using."

So yes, it does seem pretty straightforeward.

[AgentPaper]

There's no time travel involved with Opportunity Attacks. You're making it out to be more complicated and mind-bending than it actually is. An enemy attempts to leave your space, and in doing so, he provokes an attack. Him actually leaving the space doesn't provoke an attack, it's the time before he moves, when he's decided to use his movement that way, that the attack is provoked. You interrupt the normal "decide to move, then execute movement" progression with your opportunity attack, after which the enemy continues to the step where he actually moves to where he decided to move, unless you did something that makes that no longer possible.

The only way time travel gets involved is if someone makes a movement, and then you or the DM states that it provoked an AoO, so you retroactively roll the attack and, if necessary, back you up to where you provoked the attack (just before leaving that creature's reach), and stop, or fall down dead, or whatever. This is purely for convenience's sake so you don't have to go through the whole, "I want to move here. I move here. I want to move here. I move here." rigamarole.

[Kryx]

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/502915797488906240

and then put a quote here:
"Yes, OA (an attack) is based on your reach with the weapon you're using."

Holy crap! How has no1 posted this before!? That settles the argument entirely. I have no idea why he needed to be so precise with his previous wording then.

[coredump]

You have successfully demonstrated that you understand neither physics nor European martial arts nor the definition of a spear I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I could show a free-body diagram with the appropriate torque needed to overcome the angular inertia.... but I doubt that would do any good at this point.
I suppose you are implying that you have lots of experience using polearms in combat?


Nor do you understand the definition of a pike as that has a reach of 20-30 feet and is even less suited for close range combat.
Just to be clear, you do realize this is a conversation about the game of DnD, right? A game where a Pike is defined as a simple Reach weapon, and thus is *not* 20-30 feet long.
Which is good, because a pike of historical length would be a *horrible* weapon for DnD.
Of course, even historical pikes were not "20-30' long". It is hard enough trying to control a 20' pike, the concept of controlling one at 30' is kind of absurd.

[Easy_Lee]

To summarize the thread:

Reach weapons increase reach for the purpose of all attacks. Some rule that opportunity attacks are not normal attacks, and occur and 5' regardless of weapon used, while others treat opportunity attacks as normal attacks meaning that they occur at whatever your reach is.
Regardless of reach rules, OAs happen just before the target leaves your reach (or just as they enter it with polearm mastery) and occur before any further movement happens. Thus, a successful sentinel attack locks the target right at the edge of your reach.
Some rule that the feats sentinel and mage slayer, whirlwind attack, and similar are based on reach. Others treat these as working at only 5' regardless of weapon used.
Notably, using a reach weapon with sentinel or mage slayer would be a bad idea if your DM enforces the 5' range. Your opponent can step to a 10' range freely, then perform whatever action they wish without being threatened (if you have a meta-gaming DM).

Edit: please let me know if I missed anything major or if I should tweak any of the above.

[AgentPaper]

Seems like there's two logical choices to resolve this:

1) Go by RAW, reach weapons allow you to attack from 10 feet away but don't increase your reach when you are not attacking. You still threaten the same 5 feet as everyone else, and the various feats that grant opportunity attacks or similar remain at 5 feet.

2) Go by (apparent) RAI, reach weapons grant you reach all the time, not just when attacking, so you threaten out to 10 feet. Feats like Mage Slayer and Sentinel are tweaked to work at your reach rather than 5 feet, allowing them to work in a logical way with reach weapons.

Both work just fine mechanically, and I think I prefer to the first one, but I can definitely see why someone would want to use the second, and could switch sides if one of my players really wanted to play a battlefield control martial type.

[Kryx]

1) Go by RAW, reach weapons allow you to attack from 10 feet away but don't increase your reach when you are not attacking. You still threaten the same 5 feet as everyone else, and the various feats that grant opportunity attacks or similar remain at 5 feet.

2) Go by (apparent) RAI, reach weapons grant you reach all the time, not just when attacking, so you threaten out to 10 feet. Feats like Mage Slayer and Sentinel are tweaked to work at your reach rather than 5 feet, allowing them to work in a logical way with reach weapons.

I would clarify these. RAW/RAI according to Crawford is that reach does indeed apply on OAs according to the latest tweet I quoted above.

The argument for Mage Slayer & Sentinel aren't substantiated by dev tweets.


I'm going to go with the RAW/RAI of them working on attacks and OAs. However I'm not convinced that making Sentinel/Mage Slayer work at reach is the best idea. Sentinel with 10ft reach essentially allows the polearm wielder a reaction most turns. That one bullet is quite strong. Not to mention the other 2.
Similar situation with Mage Slayer, but much less common.

[Sindeloke]

What if the creators saw it like this?

Reach:
Pro: Longer range on active attacks (+2)
Con: Larger area for opponents move in (-1)
Con: Smaller damage die (-1)

It's certainly a possibility. I'm not sure the conclusions you reach here are as self-evident as your post seems to try to imply they are.

I don't reach any conclusions except that "reach is intended to be an advantage." The granularity you suggest is perfectly consistent with my claim, since it still leaves reach as a net positive that must be balanced by an additional negative modification.

I'm simply saying that "reach isn't supposed to be better than not-reach, therefore things that make reach better than not-reach are obviously not RAI" isn't an accurate premise or, therefore, a supportable argument.


However I'm not convinced that making Sentinel/Mage Slayer work at reach is the best idea. Sentinel with 10ft reach essentially allows the polearm wielder a reaction most turns. That one bullet is quite strong. Not to mention the other 2.
Similar situation with Mage Slayer, but much less common.

It's strong, sure, but I don't think it's unreasonably so. The whole Sentinel lockdown thing takes two feats, so you can't do it until level 8 and you've expended a substantial opportunity cost. That lets you lock down one enemy per turn, if you can get it into your 10-foot radius and hit its AC. It's weaker than any 4th-level crowd control spell, but you can do it all day. Sounds about right.

More range on Mage Slayer sounds powerful, but I find that mages either manage to stay far enough away from melee players that the extra 5' doesn't make any difference, or are gishes who want to be within 5' anyway.

[LordVonDerp]

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I could show a free-body diagram with the appropriate torque needed to overcome the angular inertia.... but I doubt that would do any good at this point.
I suppose you are implying that you have lots of experience using polearms in combat?
I have enough experience to know that angular inertia has little impact on stabbing. Past that I personally don't have much experience, but I know people who do.



Just to be clear, you do realize this is a conversation about the game of DnD, right? A game where a Pike is defined as a simple Reach weapon, and thus is *not* 20-30 feet long.
Which is good, because a pike of historical length would be a *horrible* weapon for DnD.
Of course, even historical pikes were not "20-30' long". It is hard enough trying to control a 20' pike, the concept of controlling one at 30' is kind of absurd.

Pikes started at 10-25 ft, but as time went most wound up between 20-25ft (which is within 20-30ft) in order to outreach their opponents.
Whether or not DnD accurately uses the term Pike is irrelevant.

[coredump]

I have enough experience to know that angular inertia has little impact on stabbing. Past that I personally don't have much experience, but I know people who do. If your opponent is kind enough to leave an opening that is conducive to a stab *and* leave the opening directly in front of the piercing weapon.... you may have a point.

OTOH, your claim was not about piercing weapons, but about *all* polearms. You are not changing your stance to try and sound more reasonable.

Anytime you need to aim an attack, and thus move the tip, it will be harder at full extension. It also means you can generate more speed given time, but without that it is much harder to provide a forceful blow at range than in close.




Pikes started at 10-25 ft, but as time went most wound up between 20-25ft (which is within 20-30ft) in order to outreach their opponents.
Whether or not DnD accurately uses the term Pike is irrelevant.So again, you are changing your story to sound more reasonable. (and no, most did not end up between 20-25')
Plus, since we are talking about DnD weapons being used while playing the DnD game... I don't see how the DnD defintion could be irrelevant. It would seem to be the *only* relevant definition.

[coredump]

To summarize the thread:
Some rule that the feats sentinel and mage slayer, whirlwind attack, and similar are based on reach. Others treat these as working at only 5' regardless of weapon used.
Notably, using a reach weapon with sentinel or mage slayer would be a bad idea if your DM enforces the 5' range. Your opponent can step to a 10' range freely, then perform whatever action they wish without being threatened (if you have a meta-gaming DM).
[/LIST]
Edit: please let me know if I missed anything major or if I should tweak any of the above.
Saying "some people rule" without noting that the rules designers have specifically said that the reach does *not* get extended.... would qualify as missing something.

[Easy_Lee]

Saying "some people rule" without noting that the rules designers have specifically said that the reach does *not* get extended.... would qualify as missing something.

You'll note that I included no tweets in my post. In my experience, designer tweets are most often used as ammunition, utilized by proponents of one ruling to attack all alternate rulings (and those who use them). Thus, I left them out.

[Kryx]

It's strong, sure, but I don't think it's unreasonably so. The whole Sentinel lockdown thing takes two feats, so you can't do it until level 8 and you've expended a substantial opportunity cost. That lets you lock down one enemy per turn, if you can get it into your 10-foot radius and hit its AC. It's weaker than any 4th-level crowd control spell, but you can do it all day. Sounds about right.
The polearm fighter would get a reaction nearly every round. I don't agree that it's not unreasonably. An extra reaction attack for 50-80% of rounds is HUGE. (50-80% based on being with 10ft of another creature that doesn't attack you. Highly likely in my experience).




Saying "some people rule" without noting that the rules designers have specifically said that the reach does *not* get extended.... would qualify as missing something.
Can you link this?

I find designer's intent to be very very informative.

[LordVonDerp]

If your opponent is kind enough to leave an opening that is conducive to a stab *and* leave the opening directly in front of the piercing weapon.... you may have a point.

OTOH, your claim was not about piercing weapons, but about *all* polearms. You are not changing your stance to try and sound more reasonable.

Anytime you need to aim an attack, and thus move the tip, it will be harder at full extension. It also means you can generate more speed given time, but without that it is much harder to provide a forceful blow at range than in close.



So again, you are changing your story to sound more reasonable. (and no, most did not end up between 20-25')
Plus, since we are talking about DnD weapons being used while playing the DnD game... I don't see how the DnD defintion could be irrelevant. It would seem to be the *only* relevant definition.
1) "for spears the rotational inertia is largely irrelevant"
You were saying my claim was about all polearms?
By the way

2) I have said the following about other polearms:
They tend to be unwieldy at close range
They tend to have difficulty making quick attacks at close range.

These are both true. Now in real life these aren't usually five foot increments, but since DnD can only simulate things in 5 foot squares, it's a good approximation. Which is exactly what I said in my first post.




3) you appear to be attempting to split hairs over an offhand measurement that turned out to be fairly accurate.

Dnd could call a duck a sheep, but it would still be a duck.

[LordVonDerp]

Saying "some people rule" without noting that the rules designers have specifically said that the reach does *not* get extended.... would qualify as missing something.

Which designer, and when?
Because on August 29 (give or take a week) of 2014, Crawford tweeted to the opposite effect stating that an opportunity attack is in fact an attack and thus gets increased range.

[Easy_Lee]

Which designer, and when?
Because on August 29 (give or take a week) of 2014, Crawford tweeted to the opposite effect stating that an opportunity attack is in fact an attack and thus gets increased range.

I think that he was talking about sentinel, mage slayer, and whirlwind attack.

[Kryx]

Which designer, and when?
Because on August 29 (give or take a week) of 2014, Crawford tweeted to the opposite effect stating that an opportunity attack is in fact an attack and thus gets increased range.
His quote is referring to Mage Slayer and Sentinel, not OAs.

[coredump]

1) "for spears the rotational inertia is largely irrelevant"
You were saying my claim was about all polearms?
By the way

2) I have said the following about other polearms:
They tend to be unwieldy at close range
They tend to have difficulty making quick attacks at close range.

These are both true. Now in real life these aren't usually five foot increments, but since DnD can only simulate things in 5 foot squares, it's a good approximation. Which is exactly what I said in my first post.




3) you appear to be attempting to split hairs over an offhand measurement that turned out to be fairly accurate.

Dnd could call a duck a sheep, but it would still be a duck.
Your habit of changing what you say and refusing to acknowledge what you previously said is getting old.

It doesn't matter what the weapon, if you are are full extension it will be slower to bring on target than if you are choked up and aiming closer. Torque, leverage, and inertia all make this true.

Spears are not reach weapons.

Pikes in DnD are not 20-30' long

Polearms are not unwieldy in normal melee range.
Polearms are more able to make quick attacks in normal melee range compared to extended range.

Physics makes this true. Actual combat makes this true.

[coredump]

His quote is referring to Mage Slayer and Sentinel, not OAs.precisely.

[Kryx]

precisely.
Link it, please!

[Sindeloke]

The polearm fighter would get a reaction nearly every round. I don't agree that it's not unreasonably. An extra reaction attack for 50-80% of rounds is HUGE. (50-80% based on being with 10ft of another creature that doesn't attack you. Highly likely in my experience).

Hm. Could you clarify for me what exactly you object to about the increase in reactions you predict? Is it the extra 1d10+Str damage per round, or the Sentinel ability to stop people in their tracks, or the ability to roll more dice and thus monopolize slightly more of everybody's game time, or something else?

[Kryx]

Hm. Could you clarify for me what exactly you object to about the increase in reactions you predict? Is it the extra 1d10+Str damage per round, or the Sentinel ability to stop people in their tracks, or the ability to roll more dice and thus monopolize slightly more of everybody's game time, or something else?
The reaction is 1d10+str damage per round which would significantly increase the DPR of any class that took it. Especially if you stacked this on a barbarian which gets +2 dmg when raging.

The polearm builds do not mathematically need easier access to an additional attack per round (one of the easiest ways to increase DPR).

[Easy_Lee]

The polearm builds do not mathematically need easier access to an additional attack per round (one of the easiest ways to increase DPR).

It's not so much about having an extra attack as having an option on which to spend one's bonus action. There are plenty of classes, including most fighters, who do not have a consistent built-in way to spend bonus actions. Compare that to valor bards, who have numerous ways to spend a bonus action.

I've been saying for a long time that polearm mastery is imbalanced not because of what it does, but because other weapon types (besides crossbows and, arguably, great weapons) do not have the same amount of feat support. Since we don't have shortblade mastery, or mace mastery, or versatile mastery, or any of the other numerous weapon feats we could have, polearms (and crossbows) seem imbalanced due to this one thing.

[Kryx]

It's not so much about having an extra attack as having an option on which to spend one's bonus action. There are plenty of classes, including most fighters, who do not have a consistent built-in way to spend bonus actions. Compare that to valor bards, who have numerous ways to spend a bonus action.
Bonus action is entirely different from the Reaction given by sentinel. The later is my concern here. 5ft reach on sentinel makes it good, but much less common.

[Easy_Lee]

Bonus action is entirely different from the Reaction given by sentinel. The later is my concern here. 5ft reach on sentinel makes it good, but much less common.

What are you concerned about happening with sentinel? Only one person in a party can effectively use it, due to the wording, and you only get one opportunity attack per turn. I can see it being beneficial against one single, powerful creature who doesn't have reach, ranged options, or any backup, but who would ever send such a creature against a party? Sentinel is useful, but there are a ton of monsters in the MM who aren't going to care.

From what I've seen, sentinel is best on rogues due to the extra sneak attack potential. Beyond that, it could be useful on a Warcaster warlock if his DM lets him use Eldritch blast for the reaction. But even in those two extreme cases, it's only going off maybe half of the time, less if the DM focuses on the sentinel users.

[Kryx]

What are you concerned about happening with sentinel?


Sentinel with 10ft reach essentially allows the polearm wielder a reaction most turns. That one bullet is quite strong. Not to mention the other 2.


The polearm fighter would get a reaction nearly every round. I don't agree that it's not unreasonably. An extra reaction attack for 50-80% of rounds is HUGE. (50-80% based on being with 10ft of another creature that doesn't attack you. Highly likely in my experience).


The reaction is 1d10+str damage per round which would significantly increase the DPR of any class that took it. Especially if you stacked this on a barbarian which gets +2 dmg when raging.

The polearm builds do not mathematically need easier access to an additional attack per round (one of the easiest ways to increase DPR).

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be.




Only one person in a party can effectively use it, due to the wording, and you only get one opportunity attack per turn.
Wut? Multiple people can take the reaction each turn. Doesn't change the numbers above at all either.


From what I've seen, sentinel is best on rogues due to the extra sneak attack potential. Beyond that, it could be useful on a Warcaster warlock if his DM lets him use Eldritch blast for the reaction. But even in those two extreme cases, it's only going off maybe half of the time, less if the DM focuses on the sentinel users.
From what I have seen Sentinel + polearm master would get a reaction 50-80% of the rounds.

[Easy_Lee]

Wut? Multiple people can take the reaction each turn. Doesn't change the numbers above at all either.

From what I have seen Sentinel + polearm master would get a reaction 50-80% of the rounds.

The wording of sentinel prevents part of its effect if there is another ally with sentinel within attacking range of the target. IIRC, the reaction attack is only allowed if you have no allies with sentinel who are within 5' of the target. They likely did this to prevent an oops-pow-surprise from a pair of sentinel rogues working in harmony.

In theory, lots of reaction attacks is nice. In practice, players often have other uses for their reaction, the reaction doesn't always hit, and the reaction is worth only about 1/3 of one's damage for the round, tops, on a non-rogue non-caster. Rogues already can't use polearms without a homebrew finesse stick, so I don't see this as a huge issue. Much as I'd love to play a finesse thief acrobat with polearm mastery and sentinel, this is definitely something WotC either thought of or nerfed by accident (quarterstaves were finesse 1d8 at one point in development).

[Kryx]

See the line at the top? Frenzy Barbarian. See the line below it? Non-frenzy Barb. See the other high lines? Martial classes.

They do not need a 30% increase in DPR from getting a reaction every turn. And in my experience reactions are rare so there is no cost.
http://i.imgur.com/k4OBAmw.png

[Finieous]

I rule that you can make a melee attack on an enemy ten feet away with a ten-foot-reach weapon. It's complicated, so let me break it down.

1. Are you eligible to make a melee attack?
If yes, go to (2)
If no, shut up then
2. Is your target within your reach?
If yes, take an attack
If no, do not take an attack

[Easy_Lee]

See the line at the top? Frenzy Barbarian. See the line below it? Non-frenzy Barb. See the other high lines? Martial classes.

They do not need a 30% increase in DPR from getting a reaction every turn. And in my experience reactions are rare so there is no cost.
http://i.imgur.com/k4OBAmw.png

Who is "they" in your post? I'll assume the (indefinite) reference is frenzy barbarians. Whether they need more damage or not, they certainly give up a lot to achieve that damage (fatigue, no bear totem, etc), but I'm not going to discuss that too much just to stay on topic.

As far as optimization in 5e goes, the two most important things (IMO) are to make sure you're good at something and make uses of your entire set of actions most rounds. Some classes, such as rogues, have built in ways to use all of their actions. Rogues have uncanny dodge (reaction) and cunning action (bonus action) which give them great uses for their full round; this is part of the reason why many consider rogues to have the best design of any martial.

With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with players finding additional sources of reactions. Polearm mastery provides a good use of one's bonus action and an additional reaction chance, which is the reason why it works so well on fighters and barbarians (assuming the barbarian can afford the feat). On bards, rogues, or warlocks, who have plenty of uses for their bonus action and some reaction options, it's useful (or would be if rogues could finesse poles) but not quite as important (made better for level 12+ blade pact warlocks due to thirsting blade). Consider how unnecessary the fear would be on a life cleric, who will be using spirit weapon, healing word, and similar on his bonus action; he only gains use from the reaction, which in turn is only particularly useful if he has sentinel.

Point is, players finding a use for their reaction is not imbalanced. All that means is that the player is trying to get the most out of his round. Not only is this optimal play, it's more fun. Being able to do more things, or having some variance to the things you do, rather than having the same static round over and over is usually more fun. But it's really not imbalanced. It helps the people who are good at damage to do more damage, which is something they might need if there is a warlock 2 / sorcerer in the party.

If 5e were an MMO, rather than a tabletop, we wouldn't be having this debate. If not for 3.5e and the huge power difference between optimal and sub-optimal play in that edition, we wouldn't be having this debate. We're all so scared of the munchkins of yore that we mistake any optimal or above-average choice for being overpowered and bad.

[Kryx]

I rule that you can make a melee attack on an enemy ten feet away with a ten-foot-reach weapon. It's complicated, so let me break it down.

1. Are you eligible to make a melee attack?
If yes, go to (2)
If no, shut up then
2. Is your target within your reach?
If yes, take an attack
If no, do not take an attack
Your condescension is appreciated, but you should perhaps read the post, any words in it really, before posting your opinion. There is some clear confusion via RAW about OAs, but that has been resolved by Crawford's buried tweet. The thread has now moved on to Lee's suggestion to make Mage Slayer and Sentinel work at reach instead of the 5 feet as per the feat.



Who is "they" in your post? I'll assume the (indefinite) reference is frenzy barbarians. Whether they need more damage or not, they certainly give up a lot to achieve that damage (fatigue, no bear totem, etc), but I'm not going to discuss that too much just to stay on topic.
Lee, it feels like you're not even reading what I'm writing... Yes "they" refers to the exact group that I wrote out the sentence before.

I included the non-frenzy barbarian and several martials as well. There isn't a significant "give up" to get 30% increased damage.


With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with players finding additional sources of reactions. Polearm mastery provides a good use of one's bonus action and an additional reaction chance.
Well then I guess I'll have to disagree with your premise as a 30% increase in DPR is not acceptable to me. I'll go for 5ft for Mage Slayer and Sentinel as RAW.



Point is, players finding a use for their reaction is not imbalanced. All that means is that the player is trying to get the most out of his round. Not only is this optimal play, it's more fun. Being able to do more things, or having some variance to the things you do, rather than having the same static round over and over is usually more fun. But it's really not imbalanced. It helps the people who are good at damage to do more damage
I agree diversity is fun. Though you're suggesting buffing a feat that you consider OP (Polearm master) by improving its interaction with Sentinel.
We don't need to make the best melee dmg feat in the game any better with more support.


if there is a warlock 2 / sorcerer in the party.
a 2 dip warlock is entirely out of the scope of this thread. I, personally, find it cheesy.

[Finieous]

Your condescension is appreciated, but you should perhaps read the post, any words in it really, before posting your opinion. There is some clear confusion via RAW about OAs, but that has been resolved by Crawford's buried tweet. The thread has now moved on to Lee's suggestion to make Mage Slayer and Sentinel work at reach instead of the 5 feet as per the feat.


I'm sorry, I really wasn't going for "condescension," and I'm not sure why anyone would take it personally enough to read it that way. I truly didn't mean to offend.

I read the thread. I don't care about "RAW" for it's own sake. There is no problem with Mage Slayer or Sentinel at my table, and I was merely responding to the thread subject and sharing how I rule.

[Easy_Lee]

Well then I guess I'll have to disagree with your premise as a 30% increase in DPR is not acceptable to me. I'll go for 5ft for Mage Slayer and Sentinel as RAW.

5' of range on a source of reaction attacks is a 30% increase in DPR? Most barbarians can't afford both polearm mastery and Sentinel / mage slayer due to their stat requirements; they would be better off just getting polearm mastery or great weapon mastery alone.

And I didn't mean to be insulting; "indefinite reference" is a writing term for when the antecedent (target) of a pronoun is unclear. I wasn't sure if you meant that barbarians, fighters, or martials in general did not need a damage increase.

[Kryx]

I'm sorry, I really wasn't going for "condescension," and I'm not sure why anyone would take it personally enough to read it that way. I truly didn't mean to offend.

I read the thread. I don't care about "RAW" for it's own sake. There is no problem with Mage Slayer or Sentinel at my table, and I was merely responding to the thread subject and sharing how I rule.
Apology accepted. I'm sorry for lashing out. I've likely been arguing too much today.

[Kryx]

5' of range on a source of reaction attacks is a 30% increase in DPR? Most barbarians can't afford both polearm mastery and Sentinel / mage slayer due to their stat requirements; they would be better off just getting polearm mastery or great weapon mastery alone.
I do not think Polearm + sentinel is beyond a barbarian. 3 stats + 2 feats are able to be had. Extra attacks increase DPR more than stat bonuses do.

My 30% number is a number I guesstimated based on an extra attack being more likely. I'd estimate that a reaction at 5 feet would happen maybe 30% of time. At 10 feet I'd guess that it happens 70% of the time.
If you give me an estimate I'll run the numbers.

EDIT: Ran the numbers. Polearm is actually about 27% behind in terms of damage from the GMW. Plus the reaction from Polearm master is the same action type as the mage slayer/Sentinel feats... I kinda forgot about that. Even if I assume there is a 80% chance of either the Polearm provoke or the Sentinel/Mage Slayer provoke the damage is still about 10% behind.

Therefore I think you've made the right decision in making sentinel & mage slayer apply at 10 feet and will do the same myself.



And I didn't mean to be insulting; "indefinite reference" is a writing term for when the antecedent (target) of a pronoun is unclear. I wasn't sure if you meant that barbarians, fighters, or martials in general did not need a damage increase.
Sorry for being a ****, I'm arguing too much. I'm just frustrated that my point isn't coming across even though I've said the DPR thing multiple times. :(

[Easy_Lee]

Sorry for being a ****, I'm arguing too much. I'm just frustrated that my point isn't coming across even though I've said the DPR thing multiple times. :(

It's alright, I'm not offended.

An estimate for how often sentinel or polearm mastery will come up is difficult, since it's heavily dependent on the DM and campaign. Let's say our barbarian friend picks up both. Well, there are still some ways he can be thwarted and not receive a reaction attack:

The opponent knocks him prone, stuns him, pushes him away, or similarly reduces or removes his ability to react with an attack.
The opponent casts a spell
The opponent teleports away
The opponent becomes invisible, or removes the barbarian's ability to see him
The opponent chooses to attack the barbarian.

My point isn't that a DM will use these options, but merely that he could. For some DMs, sentinel and polearm mastery will guarantee a reaction almost every round. For others, it will seldom work because the DM is playing to the players' weaknesses. And for others, it will be a mix. I'd like to provide an average number, but I don't have one.

That said, I suspect that most barbarians are staying right on top of the foe regardless, and that party members are doing their best to stay near the sentinel (when in melee). I don't think that 5' of range will have a huge impact on the ability. Rather, a sentinel user is discouraged from using reach weapons if the 5' range on sentinel is enforced, because it provides foes (the DM) the opportunity to step to a 10' range before making their attack to avoid retribution. In that case, our barbarian friend might just whip out a quarterstaff (as funny as that would be).

[Talderas]

The wording of sentinel prevents part of its effect if there is another ally with sentinel within attacking range of the target. IIRC, the reaction attack is only allowed if you have no allies with sentinel who are within 5' of the target. They likely did this to prevent an oops-pow-surprise from a pair of sentinel rogues working in harmony.

Sentinel has three abilities.

The first ability reduces the target's movement to 0ft if you hit him with an opportunity attack. It technically doesn't work with two allies with the sentinel feat because both players hitting that target with OAs has no additional benefit beyond one although the ability would trigger twice.

The second ability does function with two allies in combat since it triggers when the enemy leaves your reach while using disengage thus prompting an OA from both allies assuming the movement of the target would be leaving the reach of both creatures with sentinel. Two sentinels in melee against the same target are far stronger since it limits the target to 2-3 squares on the board rather than the 8 that you have with a single sentinel.

The third ability has a limitation but only when the target attacked has sentinel. If you have three people in melee, two with sentinel, and an enemy attacks the non-sentinel ally, both sentinels can use their reaction to make an attack.

[Vogonjeltz]

Well, the text says that reach increases when you attack with the weapon. It does not say that your reach ever goes back down. That's where the stretch thing comes from; we have to assume that it's a temporary thing.

Probably because it's just not bothering to state the obvious, that when the weapon isn't being used it's not extending reach.

The stretch comes from using moon logic to pretend that it wouldn't by default be a temporary thing.


It's impossible to say what the devs intended as they will not comment on it so far.

Regarding stretch armstrong: It's an example that no sane person would try to push for, but there are legitimate inconsistencies & problems with reach that should be solved by the devs.

It's always possible to say what one thinks another would say, I can't think of a single reason they would intend that the rule be read that way. Consequently, I don't think they ever intended what Easy_Lee suggested.

[Easy_Lee]

Probably because it's just not bothering to state the obvious, that when the weapon isn't being used it's not extending reach.

The stretch comes from using moon logic to pretend that it wouldn't by default be a temporary thing.

It's always possible to say what one thinks another would say, I can't think of a single reason they would intend that the rule be read that way. Consequently, I don't think they ever intended what Easy_Lee suggested.

I love how I pointed out the stretch armstrong thing as a joke, basically showing that the reach rules don't have the best wording, and that people are still attacking the post as "moon logic" used to "pretend" that the rules work in a silly way several posts (or months) later.

I never suggested that one use the stretch armstrong rules. I suggested that the reach rules are sometimes unclear and don't have the best writing, here's one silly thing to demonstrate that, and here's the way that I think we should simplify them (reach weapons extend your "reach", all attacks and melee abilities use a range of "reach"). To say that "Easy_Lee supports the stretch armstrong interpretation" is to attack a strawman. I assure you that i am not made of straw.

[LordVonDerp]

Your habit of changing what you say and refusing to acknowledge what you previously said is getting old.

It doesn't matter what the weapon, if you are are full extension it will be slower to bring on target than if you are choked up and aiming closer. Torque, leverage, and inertia all make this true.

Spears are not reach weapons.

Pikes in DnD are not 20-30' long

Polearms are not unwieldy in normal melee range.
Polearms are more able to make quick attacks in normal melee range compared to extended range.

Physics makes this true. Actual combat makes this true.
The very post you quoted disproves your allegations that I have changed my statements.

The weapon makes all the difference

If your weapon is at full extension then you, by definition, are already attacking and your weapon is already close to the target. Well, either that or you're taking an unnecessarily long swing that's likely to get you killed.



There are many different kinds of spears, different ones have different properties.
Dnd calling something a pike does not change what a pike is. Perhaps they should've chosen more appropriate name such as Dueling Spear.



If polearms were not unwieldy in close melee combat then sidearms such as swords be unnecessary. That you did not already know this would suggest you know very little about the subject as this is one of the first things you learn.

[Vogonjeltz]

I love how I pointed out the stretch armstrong thing as a joke, basically showing that the reach rules don't have the best wording, and that people are still attacking the post as "moon logic" used to "pretend" that the rules work in a silly way several posts (or months) later.

I never suggested that one use the stretch armstrong rules. I suggested that the reach rules are sometimes unclear and don't have the best writing, here's one silly thing to demonstrate that, and here's the way that I think we should simplify them (reach weapons extend your "reach", all attacks and melee abilities use a range of "reach"). To say that "Easy_Lee supports the stretch armstrong interpretation" is to attack a strawman. I assure you that i am not made of straw.

I take issue with the claim that the rule is unclear, it's quite clear. Attempts to deliberately misread it notwithstanding.

And although you say it was a lark, it's been presented seriously by the OP as a thing, so if you don't want to defend that position, stop trying to defend it. By defending it you belie your claim that the position is not your own.

[Kryx]

Why are we still arguing? The debate about OAs was settled with Crawford's tweet.

The debate about Mage Slayer/Sentinel is fairly settled based on math imo (though I'm sure some will disagree).

Are we just arguing for funzies now?

[Kryx]

Bumping this thread in case anyone comes along it later. Crawford put out a tweet confirming the intent of OAs:


That is what the text implies, but the intent is that a reach weapon increases your reach for OAs too.

[jkat718]

Bumping this thread in case anyone comes along it later. Crawford put out a tweet confirming the intent of OAs:

Sweet, thanks!