5e, the 5-foot-step and reach weapons

[Albions_Angel]

So, as everyone here is aware, 5e removed the 5 foot step mechanic. Fair play. I dont agree but I can see the logic in it. A spell caster or (even worse) a bowman shouldnt be allowed to hop back and shoot someone who is 5 feet away with no penalty.

But in doing so, 5e did something else. It broke reach weapons. Utterly.

I found this out the hard way. My character carries a reach weapon. I intended to stay 10 feet from every individual, smartly stepping away as they approached. I didnt realize the 5 foot step was gone. Then I tried to do it and was told it didnt exist. So I did the only thing I could. I dropped my pike as a free, drew my morning star as a move and smacked the enemy around the head with it (can you tell I usually play 3.5 yet?).

Encounter over, I got to thinking. Surely without the feats around polearms (our game is featless), anyone carrying the weapons ends up in combat the same way. Wander over, smack the guy, have the guy close and smack back, drop the weapon and draw a shorter one.

This seems at odds to how one would use a reach weapon in single combat. Lets ignore that D&D treats all polearms as if they were naginatas at a show competition, regardless of their real role, and focus on the naginata fighting style. Ever seen one of those videos on youtube? Its all about changing your forward foot every time the opponent comes within your reach. The entire thing is a series of 5 foot steps for the person wielding the naginata, and 10 foot stumbles for the person trying to get inside it. For a system all about epic fight scenes and theatre of the mind, the removal of 5 foot stepping seems to have actually done the opposite for reach weapons.

So, playground, how are reach weapons supposed to be used in 5th? You cant keep taking countless AOO just to be able to hit with the blade can you?

[Envyus]

So, as everyone here is aware, 5e removed the 5 foot step mechanic. Fair play. I dont agree but I can see the logic in it. A spell caster or (even worse) a bowman shouldnt be allowed to hop back and shoot someone who is 5 feet away with no penalty.

But in doing so, 5e did something else. It broke reach weapons. Utterly.

I found this out the hard way. My character carries a reach weapon. I intended to stay 10 feet from every individual, smartly stepping away as they approached. I didnt realize the 5 foot step was gone. Then I tried to do it and was told it didnt exist. So I did the only thing I could. I dropped my pike as a free, drew my morning star as a move and smacked the enemy around the head with it (can you tell I usually play 3.5 yet?).

Encounter over, I got to thinking. Surely without the feats around polearms (our game is featless), anyone carrying the weapons ends up in combat the same way. Wander over, smack the guy, have the guy close and smack back, drop the weapon and draw a shorter one.

This seems at odds to how one would use a reach weapon in single combat. Lets ignore that D&D treats all polearms as if they were naginatas at a show competition, regardless of their real role, and focus on the naginata fighting style. Ever seen one of those videos on youtube? Its all about changing your forward foot every time the opponent comes within your reach. The entire thing is a series of 5 foot steps for the person wielding the naginata, and 10 foot stumbles for the person trying to get inside it. For a system all about epic fight scenes and theatre of the mind, the removal of 5 foot stepping seems to have actually done the opposite for reach weapons.

So, playground, how are reach weapons supposed to be used in 5th? You cant keep taking countless AOO just to be able to hit with the blade can you?

Well you are under another the impression another thing from 3.5 is still around that is not. Attacking with a reach weapon while within 5 feet of an enemy does not provoke AoO's. The only thing that provokes AoO's is moving out of an opponent's reach.

[Albions_Angel]

Attacking with a reach weapon within 5 feet doesnt provoke AOO in 3.5, it simply does nothing, which I thought was similar to 5e, as you can only attack with the haft of the reach weapon, at disadvantage, and as an improvised weapon. At least thats what my DM suggested.

[RealCheese]

The only reach weapon that does not work well within 5 foot is the lance.
And you can draw a weapon as part of your attack action, so after doing what you described you would not have spent your move.

[RealCheese]

Attacking with a reach weapon within 5 feet doesnt provoke AOO in 3.5, it simply does nothing, which I thought was similar to 5e, as you can only attack with the haft of the reach weapon, at disadvantage, and as an improvised weapon. At least thats what my DM suggested.

You and your gm should look over the rules again.

[Albions_Angel]

Oh. Well that seems ass backwards coming from 3.5, but ill take it. If I dont have to drop my pike, I wont. Much rather be a bad ass with a pike than a bad ass with a morning star.

[Rhaegar14]

Attacking with a reach weapon within 5 feet doesnt provoke AOO in 3.5, it simply does nothing, which I thought was similar to 5e, as you can only attack with the haft of the reach weapon, at disadvantage, and as an improvised weapon. At least thats what my DM suggested.

Nope. Using a reach weapon simply extends your maximum reach. You can attack adjacent targets at no penalty. PHB page 147, "Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it."

EDIT: Wow. So much Shadow Monk.

[tieren]

Attacking with a reach weapon within 5 feet doesnt provoke AOO in 3.5, it simply does nothing, which I thought was similar to 5e, as you can only attack with the haft of the reach weapon, at disadvantage, and as an improvised weapon. At least thats what my DM suggested.

I do not believe this to be true in 5e. I have seen nothing in any of my books to imply a reach weapon can't be used at normal efficacy within 5 feet. There should be no mechanical difference on the attack or damage roll if your opponent is 2 feet, 6 feet, or 8 feet from you.

My understanding is the reach weapon just increases the number of potential targets you can melee by reaching more squares.

[RealCheese]

Oh. Well that seems ass backwards coming from 3.5, but ill take it. If I dont have to drop my pike, I wont. Much rather be a bad ass with a pike than a bad ass with a morning star.

The only downside to a reach weapon is that it makes it easier for the enemies to avoid AoO as those only happen when they leave your threat range.

[gfishfunk]

Oh. Well that seems ass backwards coming from 3.5, but ill take it. If I dont have to drop my pike, I wont. Much rather be a bad ass with a pike than a bad ass with a morning star.

The utility of reach is more for a supporting role than anything else. If you have another couple of melee fighters in the middle of combat and they are engaged with the enemy, reach can be nice. Alternatively, if you work a really mobile character, reach can be nice. Most melee classes have less of a use for reach. The Sentinel feat, though, makes it wonderful.

My favorite weapon in 5e (for levels 1-5 at least) is the whip for this reason. Its a nice, finesse, reach weapon. Add the mobile feat if you really want to, and you can rogue hop in, whip it, and then retreat very, very far away. I actually used it with my tank (fighter/rogue) to great affect. I could superiority die trip attack someone a couple of squares away (possibly using a sneak attack if they were based with someone), step over to someone else and push them over with my shield master feat (I did not have mobile in this build), and then move over to engage a couple of other folks.

So, I would suggest that reach works for certain builds (even feat-less).

[rhouck]

Surely without the feats around polearms (our game is featless)

It sounds like you have had your primary misconception (i.e., attacking with a reach weapon within 5 feet leads to AOO), but yes, you are still correct that polearms offer minimum benefit without feats. Without Polearm Master, it's hard to recommend a polearm over a greatsword for anything besides flavor -- the situations where the 10' reach is a benefit are just too rare.

[Theodoxus]

As you can probably guess by now, the big premise when switching to 5th (really, any edition, but 5th has enough familiar looking rules that it has created a lot of discussion) - don't bring any bias to the table.

Don't assume the rules are 'similar enough', don't assume that there are unwritten assumptions brought forward from previous editions but not codified. Do read all the rules with the idea that this is a completely new and different game.

It'd be like bringing concepts from Sorry! to a Monopoly game. Yes, they both use dice, tokens that move independently, and a square board... but you'll be sad when your Dog lands next to your buddies Shoe, and instead of sending him to Jail, he asks you for $1000 rent on his Hotel.

It took a bit for our table to wrap around polearms too. But I disagree with rhouck - it's a bit like 'if you build it, they will come.' I've seen far more times when I wished I had a polearm when I didn't, than not...

[Knaight]

It sounds like you have had your primary misconception (i.e., attacking with a reach weapon within 5 feet leads to AOO), but yes, you are still correct that polearms offer minimum benefit without feats. Without Polearm Master, it's hard to recommend a polearm over a greatsword for anything besides flavor -- the situations where the 10' reach is a benefit are just too rare.

This depends a lot on what the terrain ends up looking like and who else is in your party. If there are lots of 5 foot corridors and another melee combatant, having one using a reach weapon makes a lot of sense. If there are routinely abrubt changes in elevation, of which a significant fraction are a 5-10 foot drop, reach weapons let you attack down a surface someone else has to climb up, while also quite possibly occupying the square. So on and so forth.

[Christopher K.]

As you can probably guess by now, the big premise when switching to 5th (really, any edition, but 5th has enough familiar looking rules that it has created a lot of discussion) - don't bring any bias to the table.

Don't assume the rules are 'similar enough', don't assume that there are unwritten assumptions brought forward from previous editions but not codified. Do read all the rules with the idea that this is a completely new and different game.

It'd be like bringing concepts from Sorry! to a Monopoly game. Yes, they both use dice, tokens that move independently, and a square board... but you'll be sad when your Dog lands next to your buddies Shoe, and instead of sending him to Jail, he asks you for $1000 rent on his Hotel.

It took a bit for our table to wrap around polearms too. But I disagree with rhouck - it's a bit like 'if you build it, they will come.' I've seen far more times when I wished I had a polearm when I didn't, than not...
But Sorry! uses cards.. :P

I think this is the key piece of advice; I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to players that flanking won't give them advantage. Sure, description-wise it makes sense, but the whole point of Next seems to be to do away with the bookkeeping of prior editions. This works both ways, though - unless the monster otherwise says it gains advantage from flanking(pack tactics appeared on a bunch of monsters, IIRC), you also don't have to worry about preventing Flanks as a game term, but rather flanks as a high-level strategic term (the physical obstacle a pair of enemies would provide by flanking such as preventing you from retreating down a hallway)

[Vogonjeltz]

So, as everyone here is aware, 5e removed the 5 foot step mechanic. Fair play. I dont agree but I can see the logic in it. A spell caster or (even worse) a bowman shouldnt be allowed to hop back and shoot someone who is 5 feet away with no penalty.

But in doing so, 5e did something else. It broke reach weapons. Utterly.

I found this out the hard way. My character carries a reach weapon. I intended to stay 10 feet from every individual, smartly stepping away as they approached. I didnt realize the 5 foot step was gone. Then I tried to do it and was told it didnt exist. So I did the only thing I could. I dropped my pike as a free, drew my morning star as a move and smacked the enemy around the head with it (can you tell I usually play 3.5 yet?).

Encounter over, I got to thinking. Surely without the feats around polearms (our game is featless), anyone carrying the weapons ends up in combat the same way. Wander over, smack the guy, have the guy close and smack back, drop the weapon and draw a shorter one.

This seems at odds to how one would use a reach weapon in single combat. Lets ignore that D&D treats all polearms as if they were naginatas at a show competition, regardless of their real role, and focus on the naginata fighting style. Ever seen one of those videos on youtube? Its all about changing your forward foot every time the opponent comes within your reach. The entire thing is a series of 5 foot steps for the person wielding the naginata, and 10 foot stumbles for the person trying to get inside it. For a system all about epic fight scenes and theatre of the mind, the removal of 5 foot stepping seems to have actually done the opposite for reach weapons.

So, playground, how are reach weapons supposed to be used in 5th? You cant keep taking countless AOO just to be able to hit with the blade can you?

Reach doesn't function as it did in 3.5.

In 5th edition you can hit anyone within your reach, so there was no reason to drop the pike.

I would also advise you to check all the spell text, as virtually everything has been altered from the 3.5e counterparts.

[PotatoGolem]

As you can probably guess by now, the big premise when switching to 5th (really, any edition, but 5th has enough familiar looking rules that it has created a lot of discussion) - don't bring any bias to the table.

Don't assume the rules are 'similar enough', don't assume that there are unwritten assumptions brought forward from previous editions but not codified. Do read all the rules with the idea that this is a completely new and different game.

It'd be like bringing concepts from Sorry! to a Monopoly game. Yes, they both use dice, tokens that move independently, and a square board... but you'll be sad when your Dog lands next to your buddies Shoe, and instead of sending him to Jail, he asks you for $1000 rent on his Hotel.


I have to disagree with this. I see a variant of it on the boards a lot, but haven't really seen it borne out in practice. Most of my group is old 3.5 players, and we got the hang of the system way quicker by reading over what's different than by starting from scratch. I don't want to devalue this point of view- "what's different" is a LOT, and takes some careful reading to see sometimes. OTOH, 5e really seems like a quicker, more streamlined 3.5 in so many ways that comparing them to Sorry! and monopoly doesn't really do it justice. At the core, they're not that different of games, and things work more or less like they did in 3.5 at least 2/3 of the time.

[Malifice]

Oh. Well that seems ass backwards coming from 3.5, but ill take it. If I dont have to drop my pike, I wont. Much rather be a bad ass with a pike than a bad ass with a morning star.

Reach jusr doubles your reach. That's it.

Also you don't get an AOO in 5e for moving through a creatures reach - you only get one when a creature leaves your reach.

They can charge you (and run around inside your reach) with impunity.