Attacks of Opportunity and Reach

[FoxWolFrostFire]

So I am sure this question has been asked a bunch but I'm having trouble finding a clear ruling that I can understand.

Say I've got my trust Halberd, and a creature adjacent to me takes a normal move a five feet away. He is still in my reach, but does he still provoke? Could I say use my reaction to kick him or even attack him with the Halberd?

Or is it as simple as, I have my trusted Halberd and I can only AoO a creature that walks ten feet away? Like to me this is a simple yes or no. But no where I look makes it simple.

[holywhippet]

You can make an unarmed attack against an opponent if they move from 5 feet away from you to 10 feet (assuming your unarmed range is only 5 feet). If they move from 5 feet to 10 feet and you are holding a reach weapon like a halberd then you can still make an unarmed attack against them. However, to attack with your halberd as part of an AoO, your opponent must move to being from 10 feet or less from you to 15 feet away from you. That is how the reach rule for AoOs work, it's the reach of the weapon you choose to attack with.

Some creatures, like dragons, have natural weapons with different ranges for each and they can choose which, if any, they make an AoO with as an opponent moves away from them.

[Bobthewizard]

I think that if you are attacking with a Halberd, you only get opportunity attacks if they move from 10 to 15 feet away from you. Moving from 5 to 10 feet, they are still in your range. I would not let you draw another weapon as part of the reaction to make an opportunity attack. Opportunity attacks state "You can make an opportunity Attack when a Hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach."

I almost made a Bugbear Fighter with PAM to give them 15' reach, but dropped the idea after finding they would only get opportunity attacks if someone moved more than 15 feet away from them. If my interpretation is wrong, I may reconsider.

[ThePolarBear]

I almost made a Bugbear Fighter with PAM to give them 15' reach, but dropped the idea after finding they would only get opportunity attacks if someone moved more than 15 feet away from them. If my interpretation is wrong, I may reconsider.

Bugbears have an increased reach only during their turn.

[Laserlight]

I would rule it that you only get OA when you move out of the longest reach someone has. So if you have a polearm, you don't get OA with Unarmed when they move from adjacent to 5ft away.

That may or may not be the same as the Official interpretation, but it may very well be what your DM is using.

[Bobthewizard]

Bugbears have an increased reach only during their turn.

You are correct! I misread it. I may have to make my Glaive-wielding Bugbear after all.

[Aprender]

When you attack with a long weapon, close to your threat range and save 5 feet of movement for withdrawing away from your target. You won't provoke an attack of opportunity (if their threat range is 5 ft). Now you're 15 feet away. If you have Polearm Mastery, an enemy combatant provokes an attack of opportunity if they approach to within 10 feet of you. Add Sentinel and you can stop their movement at that 10 ft distance, which may be outside the range they need to attack you.

[Maelynn]

Say I've got my trust Halberd, and a creature adjacent to me takes a normal move a five feet away. He is still in my reach, but does he still provoke? Could I say use my reaction to kick him or even attack him with the Halberd?

If he's still in your maximum reach, you don't get an AoO. It doesn't matter if you have various weapons with various reaches, it only triggers once they move entirely out of reach.


you can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. [...] The attack occurs right before right before the creature leaves your reach.

[ThePolarBear]

If he's still in your maximum reach, you don't get an AoO. It doesn't matter if you have various weapons with various reaches, it only triggers once they move entirely out of reach.

Re-read the wording on the "reach" propriety.

[Maelynn]

Re-read the wording on the "reach" propriety.

Usually people provide arguments in a discussion, rather than issuing commands without further explanation.

[NaughtyTiger]

If he's still in your maximum reach, you don't get an AoO. It doesn't matter if you have various weapons with various reaches, it only triggers once they move entirely out of reach.

respectfully, i disagree:

Reach
This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you Attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it.

this defines reach as a property of the weapon, not the character. moreever, it explicitly says the weapon determines the reach for OA with that specific weapon.

[ThePolarBear]

Usually people provide arguments in a discussion, rather than issuing commands without further explanation.

Incredibly, i did. I just thought it was incredibly self evident as an argument once the passage is read.

And yes, i should have put a "please". It was in no way meant to be an order.

[Dalebert]

Incredibly, i did. I just thought it was incredibly self evident as an argument once the passage is read.


That's how I interpreted it.

[Maelynn]

this defines reach as a property of the weapon, not the character. moreever, it explicitly says the weapon determines the reach for OA with that specific weapon.

It says it adds to your reach, though. Which to me is an indication that for determining AoO, there's a reach per character, determined by weapons and racial traits that all add up to a maximum. Weapon reach is for your own attack, total reach is for AoO.

I read a discussion somewhere regarding AoO and total reach, and I'd like to present an argument that made me convinced that reach for AoO is determined by maximum rather than per weapon separately. I'm curious to see what you guys think about it. The argument was that the nature of the AoO is to provide a penalty for moving out of an enemy's range, to discourage people moving in for an attack and then out so the opponent would also have to use (part of) their move to get within range for their own attack. Giving a creature an AoO for every square within their reach would be overpowered and contrary to what the AoO is meant for.

The example given was a Monk/Fighter holding a pike and how they wouldn't get an AoO with their unarmed strike, despite it having a reach of 5ft and the enemy moving from adjacent to the next square. The enemy is still within range of the weapon, but out of range of the unarmed strike. So would the Monk/Fighter get an AoO if the enemy moves from 5ft to 10ft? I absolutely don't think they do, only when the enemy moves out of their maximum reach - in this case the weapon.

Another one said that monsters also get only the AoO when an enemy leaves their max reach, and not at every square between the character and their max reach. The same would have to go for PCs.


It was in no way meant to be an order.

Thanks for clarifying this, I appreciate it. Seeing the way people can sometimes address another on these boards, it was a bit difficult for me to pick up whether or not you were being harsh or perhaps even condescending.

[NaughtyTiger]

It says it adds to your reach, though. Which to me is an indication that for determining AoO, there's a reach per character, determined by weapons and racial traits that all add up to a maximum. Weapon reach is for your own attack, total reach is for AoO.

I understand your interpretation, but do not agree with it. It can reasonably be read as per weapon.



I read a discussion somewhere regarding AoO and total reach, and I'd like to present an argument that made me convinced that reach for AoO is determined by maximum rather than per weapon separately. I'm curious to see what you guys think about it. The argument was that the nature of the AoO is to provide a penalty for moving out of an enemy's range, to discourage people moving in for an attack and then out so the opponent would also have to use (part of) their move to get within range for their own attack. Giving a creature an AoO for every square within their reach would be overpowered and contrary to what the AoO is meant for.


multiple AoO ranges does not diminish or counter anything in the argument you provided.

no one is interpreting it as: AoO for every square in the creature's reach. AoO can occur when a creature crosses a reach threshhold (whether you see it as a threshhold per weapon or per creature)

i am unclear how multiple AoO is overpowered. monster moves away 5ft, the monk must decide whether to take unarmed AoO. if monk uses her reaction to attack for d6, then she can't use it for the d10 as the monster keeps moving.

i am also unclear how multiple ranges doesn't discourage people from moving in and back out, but a fixed AoO at 10ft does.

[ThePolarBear]

Thanks for clarifying this, I appreciate it. Seeing the way people can sometimes address another on these boards, it was a bit difficult for me to pick up whether or not you were being harsh or perhaps even condescending.

It was a necessary and due clarification. Written word carries no body language with it, so meaning has to be expressed way more thoroughly than what one usually does for conversation. I failed to do so.


It says it adds to your reach, though.

But only "when you Attack with it" and "determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it".

This means that the reach propriety has no influence on your reach (which is still yours) when you Attack with other weapons or determining your reach for Opportunity attacks with other weapons.

Your reach will always be yours. You just happen to have different reaches for different attacks you might make, and this includes the determination of your reach for opportunity attacks.

You focus too much on 'your' and lose sight on the important bit: "with it". 'Your' remains the same even when considering other weapons.


The argument was that the nature of the AoO is to provide a penalty for moving out of an enemy's range

Which remains true even for an enemy with many ranges. AoO provides a penality for carelessly moving out of an enemy range, regardless of what range that enemy has.


to discourage people moving in for an attack and then out so the opponent would also have to use (part of) their move to get within range for their own attack.

Which, again, happens even if you consider multiple ranges. There's an hidden implication here: you might have multiple AoOs from the same creature in the same turn.

At the moment, the only feature that could grant such an ability is just Tunnel Fighter, which remains UA for good reasons IMHO. Not even Cavalier's 18th level feature allows one to make more than an AoO per turn, and being an impassable punisher of protection is pretty much the whole trick of the subclass.


Giving a creature an AoO for every square within their reach would be overpowered and contrary to what the AoO is meant for.

It still doesn't happen. Having multiple reaches doesn't do anything if the creature moving ever leaves the most restrictive reach, and doesn't do anything when standing inside the less restrictive one but never leaving it, while never entering the most resctrictive. It works exactly the same: when a creature leaves your reach, you can choose to make one attack. If you do, you consumed your reaction and the creature is free to do whatever. If you don't, the creature will need to chose to risk an AoO, as it would have been anyway.

It doesn't change the "dancing" of combat in any way that's meaningful. You still are punished for attempting to leave, and if you are punished, you are punished only once.


The example given was a Monk/Fighter holding a pike and how they wouldn't get an AoO with their unarmed strike, despite it having a reach of 5ft and the enemy moving from adjacent to the next square. The enemy is still within range of the weapon, but out of range of the unarmed strike. So would the Monk/Fighter get an AoO if the enemy moves from 5ft to 10ft? I absolutely don't think they do, only when the enemy moves out of their maximum reach - in this case the weapon.

This is a demonstration on how the system would work. Not a reason or demonstration on why it should work like that.
"If" it works that way, than the result makes sense - this part clearly shows it.
What it doesn't show is "It does work that way for this reason".


Another one said that monsters also get only the AoO when an enemy leaves their max reach, and not at every square between the character and their max reach. The same would have to go for PCs.

But it is untrue. Monsters have explicitly multiple reaches, and each one coexists. Again, it shows how it would work "if" it worked that way. It doesn't show "it does work that way".

It's the same as "If X flew, we could see flying x". Yeah, it would happen. But do X fly? Solve X for "pigs" and "airplanes".
Nothing in what is you provided as an example sets the condition. It doesn't tell us if AoOs are pigs or airplanes.

The reach propriety does. It tells us that your reach, for both attacks you make and for consideration for AoOs, is depentant on the weapon you use. This negates the "truthfulness" of the monster maximum reach only AND the assumption that AoOs are only meant to trigger for the maximum reach: there is no "maximum" reach, only "relative" reach.

[Chronos]

Suppose that we have a fighter wielding a rapier in one hand. An enemy is standing right next to him. The enemy moves to 10 feet away from the fighter. The fighter can now attack that enemy using his rapier.

Now consider the exact same situation, except that the fighter also has a whip in his other hand. Now, when the enemy makes the exact same movement, he can't attack him with his rapier? That makes no sense. How does the presence of the whip prevent him from attacking?

[firelistener]

Attacks of opportunity are only provoked when a creature leaves a threatened area, not entering it. If your reach is 10ft, then something must go from less than 10ft from you to greater than 10ft from you to provoke an attack of opportunity.

[Maelynn]

But only "when you Attack with it" and "determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it".

This means that the reach propriety has no influence on your reach (which is still yours) when you Attack with other weapons or determining your reach for Opportunity attacks with other weapons.

Your reach will always be yours. You just happen to have different reaches for different attacks you might make, and this includes the determination of your reach for opportunity attacks.

You focus too much on 'your' and lose sight on the important bit: "with it". 'Your' remains the same even when considering other weapons.

To me, the 'with it' part only makes it clear with what weapon you should be making the AoO at that reach. If you wield a pike and the enemy moves from 10ft to 15ft, you can only make an AoO with that weapon - not with a weapon that doesn't have the reach property.

The reason I focus on 'your' is because that's what the rules on AoO themselves say. They only mention 'your reach' and not 'each of your weapons' reaches'. This implies that your reach is whatever your maximum is. If something else is indeed meant, then the wording is too ambiguous.


Suppose that we have a fighter wielding a rapier in one hand. An enemy is standing right next to him. The enemy moves to 10 feet away from the fighter. The fighter can now attack that enemy using his rapier.

Now consider the exact same situation, except that the fighter also has a whip in his other hand. Now, when the enemy makes the exact same movement, he can't attack him with his rapier? That makes no sense. How does the presence of the whip prevent him from attacking?

Because the Fighter's reach has increased. Like I said above, the wording of the AoO rules implies that there's a difference between what your reach is and what your weapon's reach is, and that your own reach is used to determine AoO.


Attacks of opportunity are only provoked when a creature leaves a threatened area, not entering it. If your reach is 10ft, then something must go from less than 10ft from you to greater than 10ft from you to provoke an attack of opportunity.

This explains my viewpoint better than I have. The notion of a threatened area (and its border) describes the idea I have about AoO much clearer, also on the front of what exactly an AoO does. It's a 'punishment' for leaving the circle around you that you threaten, the entire area, regardless of what weapon you use.

[NaughtyTiger]

The notion of a threatened area (and its border) describes the idea I have about AoO much clearer, also on the front of what exactly an AoO does. It's a 'punishment' for leaving the circle around you that you threaten, the entire area, regardless of what weapon you use.

but it shouldn't punish the attacker more than the guy leaving.
if the attacker has a rapier, he gets to use d8.
if the attacker has a rapier and a whip, you say he has to use a d4.

if the whip-rapier attacker closes in on a ranged-attack monster to force disadvantage on ranged attacks, you say the monster can take 5ft step, make ranged attacks without AoO or disadvantage.

[ThePolarBear]

To me, the 'with it' part only makes it clear with what weapon you should be making the AoO at that reach.

I'm sorry, i can't see how you can reach this conclusion. "with it" in no way shape or form has an implication of obligation, and furthermore the phrase it is in, taken as a whole, clarifies that it is only for those AoOs specifically, not for any and all AoOs that might be possible.


If you wield a pike and the enemy moves from 10ft to 15ft, you can only make an AoO with that weapon - not with a weapon that doesn't have the reach property.

Why? With the pike (with it) your reach is 10 ft. Without it it isn't, and you go back to the standard rule: your reach is 5ft. Otherwise, you would also acknowledge that by wielding a whip all your attacks, including unarmed ones and those from, i dunno, a dagger, are made at as if you had a reach of 10ft, because the wording for the reach propriety uses the same construction. Since this isn't the case, there is a problem.


The reason I focus on 'your' is because that's what the rules on AoO themselves say. They only mention 'your reach' and not 'each of your weapons' reaches'. This implies that your reach is whatever your maximum is. If something else is indeed meant, then the wording is too ambiguous.

You don't apply rules that are for a specific situation to a general one. In this case, the specific change is granted by the reach propriety to weapons that have the reach propriety, in regards to attacks and AoOs reach. It doesn't change any other weapon or your reach for attacks that are not made "with it" - the reach weapon.


This explains my viewpoint better than I have. The notion of a threatened area (and its border) describes the idea I have about AoO much clearer, also on the front of what exactly an AoO does.

No one is challenging the fact that you have an idea. For what i see what is being challenged is the adherence to the written word. Because you have an idea, it doesn't mean that it fits the reality of what is there.

There's no concept of a "threatened area" in 5th edition. And again, it relies on an "if", namely if your reach is 10ft, that is fallacious. Your reach is not 10ft. Your reach for attacks made with a specific weapon and to designate what AoO you can make with that weapon is 10ft. For every other purpose, your reach is still the basic one granted by the general rule.

[greenstone]

Attacks of opportunity are only provoked when a creature leaves a threatened area
That's the way I rule it, solely for simplicity.

For the purposes of attacks of opportunity, every combatant has one and only one reach, which is the maximum area they can threaten with a melee attack. If you stay in this area, you're OK. If you leave it, you potentially get punished for withdrawing recklessly (i.e. not Disengaging).

[FoxWolFrostFire]

Welp. This like every other version of this question I found has derailed into no one knowing the answer lol. To be clear, people think they know the answer, but we can get one common answer. So, Good try boys maybe next time.

[ThePolarBear]

Say I've got my trust Halberd, and a creature adjacent to me takes a normal move a five feet away. He is still in my reach, but does he still provoke? Could I say use my reaction to kick him or even attack him with the Halberd?


Welp. This like every other version of this question I found has derailed into no one knowing the answer lol. To be clear, people think they know the answer, but we can get one common answer. So, Good try boys maybe next time.

The answer is Yes.

Your reach is 5ft. Your reach is 10ft only for the pupose of attacks with your halberd or when considering attacks of opportunity that you make with it.
You are kicking? Then you can kick the creature.

To see the difference in wording compare the reach propriety with, for example, the Bugbear trait. Neither applies at anything but what it is written: Bugbears still have a reach of 5 feet, and a medium character still has a reach of 5 feet until the exception manifests itself.

It's this simple: nothing in the reach propriety changes what reach you have as the general, only for specific situations. Kicking someone that leaves your reach is not one of such situations, exactly as kicking someone that moves from 5 ft away to 10 ft away is not possible, since the 10 ft reach is granted only for AoOs with reach weapons, and a kick is not a reach weapon.

[FoxWolFrostFire]

The answer is Yes.

Your reach is 5ft. Your reach is 10ft only for the pupose of attacks with your halberd or when considering attacks of opportunity that you make with it.
You are kicking? Then you can kick the creature.

To see the difference in wording compare the reach propriety with, for example, the Bugbear trait. Neither applies at anything but what it is written: Bugbears still have a reach of 5 feet, and a medium character still has a reach of 5 feet until the exception manifests itself.

It's this simple: nothing in the reach propriety changes what reach you have as the general, only for specific situations. Kicking someone that leaves your reach is not one of such situations, exactly as kicking someone that moves from 5 ft away to 10 ft away is not possible, since the 10 ft reach is granted only for AoOs with reach weapons, and a kick is not a reach weapon.

Wish every one could agree on that. I believe that is how it reads as well. But. Yep.

[ThePolarBear]

Wish every one could agree on that. I believe that is how it reads as well. But. Yep.

I wish everyone had cake. The only thing i can do is keep baking.

[Segev]

I thought the OA rules in 5e were that you got to make one when somebody engaged with you attempted to disengage without spending a special action to do so safely. So it wouldn't provoke as long as they remained engaged with you. They're engaged with you as long as they're in your reach, right?

[Laserlight]

Well, I think the "multiple reaches" proponents have successfully changed my mind.

Except for Thri Kreen Tunnel Fighter Sentinel PAM fighters with a weapon in every hand. They get nothing.

[ThePolarBear]

I thought the OA rules in 5e were that you got to make one when somebody engaged with you attempted to disengage without spending a special action to do so safely. So it wouldn't provoke as long as they remained engaged with you. They're engaged with you as long as they're in your reach, right?

That's a rationalization on the Disengage Action name. The Disengage Action could be called the "ABC action" and have the exact same mechanics, ending up working the exact same way while being less easy on the memory.

The same conceptual rationalization however works even if a creature can hit you at different ranges with different appendages: you have to pay attention to each one individually and the Disengage Action is what represent that particular care you are putting into it.

In fact the Disengage Action works for every creature you cross your path with during your turn, it doesn't defend you from the AoOs of a single creature. For me it better exemplifies the "i take care to leave no openings while moving" thought, and works for every aspect of that. Well, exception like Sentinel excluded, obviously.

Rulewise, there's no concept of "engagement". That is more for systems like 13th Age and prehaps 4e (but i'm really going by memory, so i might be completely wrong about it.).

[NaughtyTiger]

Welp. This like every other version of this question I found has derailed into no one knowing the answer lol. To be clear, people think they know the answer, but we can get one common answer. So, Good try boys maybe next time.

I disagree with this sentiment.

It sounds like you are saying there is only 1 valid interpretation, and we just haven't agreed on which one yet.
Both of these (per weapon reach and per character reach) are valid interpretations, and both perfectly reasonable.
If it was clear cut one way or the other, then there wouldn't be disagreement with every other version of the question.

Next time will have the same result.

[Segev]

Rulewise, there's no concept of "engagement". That is more for systems like 13th Age and prehaps 4e (but i'm really going by memory, so i might be completely wrong about it.).

Really? I thought it was expressly used to describe "being in melee range doing more than just passing through."

[ThePolarBear]

Really? I thought it was expressly used to describe "being in melee range doing more than just passing through."

Rulewise? There is no difference between passing through or "doing more" if that "doing more" hasn't a mechanical component to it. And even that difference is limited to what the extent of "doing more" is. Be it the Help Action, Attack Action, or whatever.

"Engaged" is not a "keyword", so to speak, or something the rules hinge on about as a condition for anything.