Ranged attacks when engaged in melee

[Crucius]

So today I learned that ranged attacks get disadvantage not just on an adjacent target, but on all targets as long as an enemy is within 5 feet.


Aiming a ranged Attack is more difficult when a foe is next to you. When you make a ranged Attack with a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have disadvantage on the Attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a Hostile creature who can see you and who isn’t Incapacitated.
(emphasis mine)

Is this right? Do you most of you interpret it that way and have I been doing it wrong all this time? Please help me with this mind-melt and share your experiences and opinions because I can't deal right now

[Man_Over_Game]

So today I learned that ranged attacks get disadvantage not just on an adjacent target, but on all targets as long as an enemy is within 5 feet.


(emphasis mine)

Is this right? Do you most of you interpret it that way and have I been doing it wrong all this time? Please help me with this mind-melt and share your experiences and opinions because I can't deal right now

Yup. It's to replace the previous rules where making a ranged attack provoked an Attack of Opportunity.

A similar rule that people commonly forget: all creatures create half-cover, even your allies. If you try to make a ranged attack from behind your allies, you probably are forgetting to take that -2 penalty to your hit.

Additionally, knocking a creature Prone doesn't cause ranged attacks against them to have Disadvantage. Rather, Prone causes attacks further than 5 feet to be made with Disadvantage. You could, for example, knock a target prone and then headshot them with Crossbow Expert at point-blank range for Advantage. Attacking that same creature with the maximum range of a polearm or whip should actually be made with Disadvantage.

[Crucius]

Thanks for clarifying, coming from you I'm sure it's right! Time to message my players about this

[Christew]

Versimilitude-wise, this is to reflect that aiming and shooting while someone is trying to beat you with a melee weapon would be difficult at best.

And this is why Crossbow Expert is an amazing feat even if you don't use a crossbow. The second bullet:
"• Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls"
applies to ALL ranged attacks including spells.

[LudicSavant]

Is this right? Yes.


have I been doing it wrong all this time? Yes.

[stoutstien]

So today I learned that ranged attacks get disadvantage not just on an adjacent target, but on all targets as long as an enemy is within 5 feet.


(emphasis mine)

Is this right? Do you most of you interpret it that way and have I been doing it wrong all this time? Please help me with this mind-melt and share your experiences and opinions because I can't deal right now

That is correct. don't feel bad this is one of those things I think a lot of people overlook or intentionally overrule. I agree with MoG about wishing it also applied with weapons with reach. Missed opportunity in my opinion.

This is also why adding a handful of interference NPCs to encounters helps even if they can be taken out easily.

[iTreeby]

And this is why Crossbow Expert is an amazing feat even if you don't use a crossbow. The second bullet:
"• Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls"
applies to ALL ranged attacks including spells.

This bullet also makes using a net without disadvantage possible. A net has a short range of 5 so the only ways to use it without disadvantage are to cancel with advantage, have crosbow expert, or have sharpshooter for use of long range without disadvantage.

[Crucius]

have I been doing it wrong all this time?

Yes.

Hahaha, brusque yet comical. Exquisite.

[da newt]

This rule has always seemed a little off to me only because it doesn't aply to spell casting - logically I'd think someone swing a sword at you would disrupt a longbow shot and spell casting equally (especially somatic and material).

[LudicSavant]

This rule has always seemed a little off to me only because it doesn't aply to spell casting - logically I'd think someone swing a sword at you would disrupt a longbow shot and spell casting equally (especially somatic and material).

If the spell involves a ranged attack roll, it applies to spells too.

But yes, Wizards get off scot-free when it comes to throwing Fireballs and the like, which always strike exactly where intended with unerring accuracy. Want to put that fireball bead right through a tiny slit of a murder hole 120 feet away? You always will. That's the real magic, right there.

[Keravath]

This rule has always seemed a little off to me only because it doesn't aply to spell casting - logically I'd think someone swing a sword at you would disrupt a longbow shot and spell casting equally (especially somatic and material).

It applies to spells that require an attack roll. You can still cast the spells, they are just harder to aim. However, it doesn't affect spells that require a saving throw, likely because these don't require the same level of aiming and it is the aiming at something with a ranged attack that is more difficult, not performing whatever action you decide to take.

[Man_Over_Game]

This rule has always seemed a little off to me only because it doesn't aply to spell casting - logically I'd think someone swing a sword at you would disrupt a longbow shot and spell casting equally (especially somatic and material).

It does for spells, as long as the spell you're casting is a ranged attack. Firebolt vs. Sacred Flame.

Big difference there.

Saving Throws are kinda assumed to be explosive or centered on the target, as opposed to relying on the caster's precision.

More importantly, though, is that the Saving Throw spells don't usually have an Attack Roll to take at Disadvantage in the first place. By the time the target is rolling their Dex save (or whatever), the question no longer is how accurate the caster is, but how nimble the target is, and the caster being distracted by a melee combatant doesn't have an impact on how nimble their target is.

At least, that's the theory. The more-sensible justification is probably that it's simpler the way it is, where only Ranged Attacks are the only kinds of spells impacted by the rule. Dex saving throws already have enough exceptions when it comes to how class features and conditions interact with it, and imposing an "Advantage on Dex Saving Throws, but only for casting spells that target a single creature" just doesn't add enough to the game compared to how much it takes away.

EDIT: Sniped. Like twice.

[JNAProductions]

If the spell involves a ranged attack roll, it applies to spells too.

But yes, Wizards get off scot-free when it comes to throwing Fireballs and the like, which always strike exactly where intended with unerring accuracy. Want to put that fireball bead right through a tiny slit of a murder hole 120 feet away? You always will. That's the real magic, right there.

A DM is well within reason to require an attack roll against a target AC to do THAT trick. I'd certainly require it to be that precise at that distance.

[king_steve]

A DM is well within reason to require an attack roll against a target AC to do THAT trick. I'd certainly require it to be that precise at that distance.

I’ve always thought of fire bolt as the type of spell that you would produce from your wand (or other spell casting implement) and would travel to the target versus a fireball being more of an explosion centered at a point you can see.

As a DM I might make that a perception check to pin point the center of the fireball but I’m not really sure.

[JNAProductions]

I’ve always thought of fire bolt as the type of spell that you would produce from your wand (or other spell casting implement) and would travel to the target versus a fireball being more of an explosion centered at a point you can see.

As a DM I might make that a perception check to pin point the center of the fireball but I’m not really sure.

If you're going off the default fluff, Fireball has an orange bead streak to the point of impact and then go BOOM.

Moreover, a spell attack roll (Casting Stat plus Proficiency bonus) is something that most casters will be better at than Perception. I want the PCs to succeed-but at the same time, it's my job to put reasonable challenges in their path.

[LudicSavant]

If you're going off the default fluff, Fireball has an orange bead streak to the point of impact and then go BOOM.

Yup, you actually shoot it. It's just another manifestation of "casters can just do it automatically, martials gotta roll" mentality carried over from the legacy of previous editions (in which this mentality was worse than it is now. But it still casts a shadow over D&D's legacy).

To get an inkling of an idea of how bad the double standard for martials/casters used to be, it included things like a Fighter being unable to attack multiple times if they moved during a turn (while Wizards could move as they pleased), or Str-dumping Wizards not having to track holding and drawing their components while Fighters needed encumbrance and actions, or it being controversial that they gave Fighters the climb skill because "skills are for Rogues." Or Fighters not getting to apply all of their AC against spells with attack rolls because "the fire ray just has to touch you, not actually get past your shield or armor. It wouldn't make sense if a shield could block a magic ray attack. You know, unlike when the armor was deflecting giant boulders and colossal monster attacks." And so much more.


Player 1: "My character is an Artist. I make a quick sketch of the suspect"
DM: "Make a skill check"
Player 2: "I cast Silent Image to create a likeness of the suspect."
DM: "OK"

[iTreeby]

If the spell involves a ranged attack roll, it applies to spells too.

But yes, Wizards get off scot-free when it comes to throwing Fireballs and the like, which always strike exactly where intended with unerring accuracy. Want to put that fireball bead right through a tiny slit of a murder hole 120 feet away? You always will. That's the real magic, right there.

Cover does grant bonuses to dexterity saves so a fireball would be less effective in that case.

[Man_Over_Game]

Cover does grant bonuses to dexterity saves so a fireball would be less effective in that case.

Well, not specifically Fireball. It states that it spreads around corners, so I'd interpret that as the same as "Cover don't do s***".

But Fireball is the exception in that regard, not the norm. Most Dex saves don't have that clause.

[LudicSavant]

Cover does grant bonuses to dexterity saves so a fireball would be less effective in that case.

Nope. Fireball specifically ignores that bonus. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/21/how-does-fireball-and-cover-interacts/) And even if it didn't have that clause, it wouldn't matter if you just put the point of origin behind the cover.

Cover only helps you if all of the following are true:

A) The spell is a Dexterity save.
B) The cover's between you and the spell's point of origin (not between you and the caster).
C) The spell doesn't have a "goes around cover" clause like Fireball or Sacred Flame has.

[J-H]

This is why my party's sorcerer took Spell Sniper.
He's level 10 with 17 CHA. His other ASI went to magic initiate (ice knife). He's got a ton of cantrips.

[kazaryu]

Yup, you actually shoot it. It's just another manifestation of "casters can just do it automatically, martials gotta roll" mentality carried over from the legacy of previous editions (in which this mentality was worse than it is now. But it still casts a shadow over D&D's legacy).


here's the thing though.

you're comparing fireball, a long rest resource, to a martials at-will attack. If im consuming a resource that im not getting back today, then i'd like for it to actually do something, thanks. That the biggest reason people dislike disintegrate. you have to consume a 6th level spell slot (which is always a significant resource, even at 20th level) and there's a good chance that it does absolutely nothing. Its part of the reason that direct, save based debuffs are less commonly used than area control/buff spells for support casters. becase you're consuming a significant resource, and it might be wasted. which really isn't fun.

it would make far more sense to compare it to consumable resources, like barbarian rage...oh look, no roll for that. action surge, nope...no roll. paladin smites, no roll. battlemaster maneuvers, no roll.

they all 'just work', just like the casters consumable resources. im not going to speak of past mentality, but, in 5e there's no obvious favoring of casters. \

[LudicSavant]

here's the thing though.

you're comparing fireball, a long rest resource, to a martials at-will attack.

First of all, that's not quite what I was saying. Second of all, the "can be cast in melee range without penalty, and can ignore cover" property is shared by many of the at-will cantrips, too. The example of Fireball is arbitrary.

[kazaryu]

First of all, that's not quite what I was saying. Second of all, the "can be cast in melee range without penalty, and can ignore cover" property is shared by many of the at-will cantrips, too. The example of Fireball is arbitrary.

in which case its a poor example, because, as i demonstrated, its mechanically justifiable.

as the rest: sure, there are some save based ones that are....they're also cantrips, they are much less effectve than a martials at-will attacks.

so sure, the martial trades off a bit of reliability, in exchange for straight power.

once again, mechanically justifiable. meanwhile, the one attack cantrip that *does* keep up with the martials basic attack (EB) is (shockingly) subject to the same limitations. whoops.

[LudicSavant]

in which case its a poor example, because, as i demonstrated, its mechanically justifiable.

A poor example of what? I never said the way Fireball worked wasn't mechanically justifiable.

What you're saying my point is, and what my point actually is, do not appear to be the same thing.

[iTreeby]

Nope. Fireball specifically ignores that bonus. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/21/how-does-fireball-and-cover-interacts/) And even if it didn't have that clause, it wouldn't matter if you just put the point of origin behind the cover.

Cover only helps you if all of the following are true:

A) The spell is a Dexterity save.
B) The cover's between you and the spell's point of origin (not between you and the caster).
C) The spell doesn't have a "goes around cover" clause like Fireball or Sacred Flame has.

Wow that makes sense I guess. Never really understood why it had the went around corners language.

[LtPowers]

Nope. Fireball specifically ignores that bonus. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/21/how-does-fireball-and-cover-interacts/)

Not quite.

Sacred flame explicitly ignores cover. Fireball does not; it just spreads around corners. In practice, that does mean that half or 3/4 cover probably doesn't materially slow the burst. But total cover can.

If the distance from the origin to the edge of your cover plus the distance from the edge of your cover to you is more than 20' you don't get hit by the fireball, even if you're nominally within 20' of the origin as the crow flies.


Powers &8^]

[ProsecutorGodot]

Not quite.

Sacred flame explicitly ignores cover. Fireball does not; it just spreads around corners. In practice, that does mean that half or 3/4 cover probably doesn't materially slow the burst. But total cover can.

If the distance from the origin to the edge of your cover plus the distance from the edge of your cover to you is more than 20' you don't get hit by the fireball, even if you're nominally within 20' of the origin as the crow flies.


Powers &8^]

I don't think there are any rules to adjudicate anything more than "if your cover isn't a 40ft+ wall that spans beyond the diameter of the fireball, it spreads around whatever corner is present and hits you."

The way I read the effect is if there's a corner for it to spread around it will achieve its full spherical effect through there. I can't find any rules that would make that happen differently and I'm not pulling out a protractor and a set of equations to figure out how the blast should form around a corner. It does what it says on the box.

[LudicSavant]

I don't think there are any rules to adjudicate anything more than "if your cover isn't a 40ft+ wall that spans beyond the diameter of the fireball, it spreads around whatever corner is present and hits you."

The way I read the effect is if there's a corner for it to spread around it will achieve its full spherical effect through there. I can't find any rules that would make that happen differently and I'm not pulling out a protractor and a set of equations to figure out how the blast should form around a corner. It does what it says on the box.

Not to mention that we weren’t even talking about full cover in the first place. We were clearly talking about the cover bonus to Dex saves (which is from half and 3/4 cover, full cover does something different). :P

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So today I learned that ranged attacks get disadvantage not just on an adjacent target, but on all targets as long as an enemy is within 5 feet.


(emphasis mine)

Is this right? Do you most of you interpret it that way and have I been doing it wrong all this time? Please help me with this mind-melt and share your experiences and opinions because I can't deal right now

If you are within 5' of a hostile creature, you have disadvantage on a ranged attack.

Do note that if a creature, ally or not, is between you and the target the target gets a +2 to AC and Dex Saves.

Grab sharpshooter and crossbow expert to get rid of these penalties.

Crossbow expert is actually a good feat for casters.

[MaxWilson]

So today I learned that ranged attacks get disadvantage not just on an adjacent target, but on all targets as long as an enemy is within 5 feet.


(emphasis mine)

Is this right? Do you most of you interpret it that way and have I been doing it wrong all this time? Please help me with this mind-melt and share your experiences and opinions because I can't deal right now

Absolutely, yes. It has always been this way. If you want to stop a giant from chucking boulders at you (or at least impose disadvantage), ordering your the party fighter to get up in its face is one option.

Than again, a standard countermeasure is for the missile thrower to just eat an opportunity attack and move away, so if the fighter doesn't have Sentinel be prepared for the giant to paste you with a rock anyway. Maybe.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Absolutely, yes. It has always been this way. If you want to stop a giant from chucking boulders at you (or at least impose disadvantage), ordering your the party fighter to get up in its face is one option.

Than again, a standard countermeasure is for the missile thrower to just eat an opportunity attack and move away, so if the fighter doesn't have Sentinel be prepared for the giant to paste you with a rock anyway. Maybe.

I'm really disapointed that they took away movement stopping from the fighter and made it a feat. It should be both.

The fighter has one of the weakest OA in the game. Totally ignorable

[Keltest]

I'm really disapointed that they took away movement stopping from the fighter and made it a feat. It should be both.

The fighter has one of the weakest OA in the game. Totally ignorable

On the other hand, that means that the fighter is within melee range of you, or at least can be, and youre apparently ignoring him. That's not necessarily a good life choice in this edition.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

On the other hand, that means that the fighter is within melee range of you, or at least can be, and youre apparently ignoring him. That's not necessarily a good life choice in this edition.

Plenty of creatures will trade an OA for potentially downing the caster. No brainer right there.

Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian, or even the Ranger can have OAs that hurt... The Fighter is going to tickle.

[JumboWheat01]

On the other hand, Fighter's have more ASI than any other class and can easily trade them in for feats that other classes may be more wary about picking up.

[Keltest]

Plenty of creatures will trade an OA for potentially downing the caster. No brainer right there.

Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian, or even the Ranger can have OAs that hurt... The Fighter is going to tickle.

That's all well and good, but if the martials are up wailing on the enemy's ranged attackers, then the casters aren't really the biggest threat at that point. If you have a dwarf warrior of any sort doing his best lumberjack impression on that giant's kneecap, chucking a rock at the wizard in the back not immediately doing anything threatening isn't really going to be that giant's main concern anymore.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

On the other hand, Fighter's have more ASI than any other class and can easily trade them in for feats that other classes may be more wary about picking up.

This was a thing in 3e as well, the argument for this kind of design has been thoroughly beaten into the ground and I don't need to repeat all of it.

If a fighter needs a feat to have a decent OA, then the fighter has a bad OA and needs outside help to bring it up to par in some way.

[LudicSavant]

I'm really disapointed that they took away movement stopping from the fighter and made it a feat. It should be both.

The fighter has one of the weakest OA in the game. Totally ignorable

Try making the Fighter a shadowblade Eldritch Knight with Warcaster/Booming Blade.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Try making the Fighter a shadowblade Eldritch Knight with Warcaster/Booming Blade.

Yeah, it's generally accepted that spell lists make for a better class than the fighter.

[kazaryu]

A poor example of what? I never said the way Fireball worked wasn't mechanically justifiable.

.


Yup, you actually shoot it. It's just another manifestation of "casters can just do it automatically, martials gotta roll" mentality carried over from the legacy of previous editions (in which this mentality was worse than it is now. But it still casts a shadow over D&D's legacy).


you explicitly said that the way fireball works, is an example of unfair treatment of martials compared to casters. explicitly claiming it as a negative. and therefore claiming that it *shouldn't* work that way.

i said that fireball is a poor example of this mentality (and further implied that this mentality is almost entirely non-existent in 5e) because fireball is a long rest resource, as opposed to an at-will option.
to which you replied that (paraphrase) 'well, some cantrips are like that too, fireball is just an example'.

to which i replied (paraphrase) 'sure but because of aforementioned reasons fireball isn't actually an example of that mentality. Cantirps, however, are also far less effective than what you're comparing it to, so its still a fair tradeoff'

[LudicSavant]

you explicitly said that the way fireball works, is an example of unfair treatment of martials compared to casters. explicitly claiming it as a negative. and therefore claiming that it *shouldn't* work that way.

An issue I have with your reasoning here is that you just assumed that if I thought something should be changed, it would have to be the casters.

A second is that you're arguing about resource schedules and "fair tradeoffs" as if the mindset couldn't exist if things were balanced. That's a false premise. It's like if I said "there's a mindset that skills are for Rogues and combat is for Fighters," and someone tried to disprove that said mindset existed by saying there were tradeoffs for a Fighter getting less skills. It's... kinda beside the point.

A third is that when I say that Fireball's mechanics and fluff manifested from a certain mindset, the particular mechanics and fluff I was talking about were manifested in past editions, then carried over. Hence why I was talking about the historical context. You'll also note that I said there was a push away from this mindset in 5e, though its shadow is still there.


paladin smites, no roll. battlemaster maneuvers, no roll.

You totally still need to make an attack roll before you can apply a smite or most battlemaster maneuvers. You just don't waste the resource if you miss.


here's the thing though.

you're comparing fireball, a long rest resource, to a martials at-will attack.

to which i replied (paraphrase) 'sure but because of aforementioned reasons fireball isn't actually an example of that mentality. Cantirps, however, are also far less effective than what you're comparing it to, so its still a fair tradeoff'

You keep saying that I was just comparing to at-will basic attacks, even though that's not true. :smallannoyed:

[iTreeby]

You totally still need to make an attack roll before you can apply a smite or most battlemaster maneuvers. You just don't waste the resource if you miss.

Smite spells on the other hand hang out till you get a hit ir lose consentration, I've never seen one get loses to consentration.

[kazaryu]

An issue I have with your reasoning here is that you just assumed that if I thought something should be changed, it would have to be the casters.


citation please? I said that you said that it was unfair of casters to have things that 'just worked' (like fireball). And that this was a negative. which you did, with your original statement.



A second is that you're arguing about resource schedules and "fair tradeoffs" as if the mindset couldn't exist if things were balanced. That's a false premise. It's like if I said "there's a mindset that skills are for Rogues and combat is for Fighters," and someone tried to disprove that said mindset existed by saying there were tradeoffs for a Fighter getting less skills. It's... kinda beside the point.

Except you specifically painted that mindset as a negative. which is why i jumped in in the first place. the specific examples of the mindset you used don't apply *at all* to 5e.



You totally still need to make an attack roll before you can apply a smite or most battlemaster maneuvers. You just don't waste the resource if you miss.

yes, you need to have landed an attack, but you don't decide to apply the ability until that attack lands. hence, it just works.



You keep saying that I was just comparing to at-will basic attacks, even though that's not true. :smallannoyed:




Yup, you actually shoot it. It's just another manifestation of "casters can just do it automatically, martials gotta roll" mentality carried over from the legacy of previous editions (in which this mentality was worse than it is now. But it still casts a shadow over D&D's legacy)


this statement, inherently compares fireball to things that 'martials gotta roll' for. and the things martials gotta roll for? are all, almost exclusively at-will abilities. so yes. you did in fact compare fireball to martial attacks. you can pretend that you didn't, because you never explicitly said it. but you absolutely did.



You seem to have just assumed that I was excluding limited use attacks, despite me not saying anything at all to that effect.

limited use attacks like......?

[MaxWilson]

Plenty of creatures will trade an OA for potentially downing the caster. No brainer right there.

Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian, or even the Ranger can have OAs that hurt... The Fighter is going to tickle.

Play a Battlemaster then and use Menacing or Trip on your OA. Menacing imposes disadvantage and Trip reduces effective movement speed.


That's all well and good, but if the martials are up wailing on the enemy's ranged attackers, then the casters aren't really the biggest threat at that point. If you have a dwarf warrior of any sort doing his best lumberjack impression on that giant's kneecap, chucking a rock at the wizard in the back not immediately doing anything threatening isn't really going to be that giant's main concern anymore.

Nonsense. Hypnotic Pattern is more threatening to a couple of Fire Giants than one more round of melee attacks from a fighter.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Play a Battlemaster then and use Menacing or Trip on your OA. Menacing imposes disadvantage and Trip reduces effective movement speed.



Nonsense. Hypnotic Pattern is more threatening to a couple of Fire Giants than one more round of melee attacks from a fighter.

Battlemaster is one of the worst subclasses in the game.

A couple times a short rest you can do things... Which menacing is about the one actual good thing they get that isn't either useless or should be at-will.

Menacing requires a hit, a failed will save, and creatures not immune to being frightened. Not exactly a good feature to rely on.

Edit

Also, yeah, Hypnotic Pattern turns martials into a much bigger threat due to enemies not being able to respond at all. Multiple enemies at one time. One save to one round of not doing anything.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Battlemaster is one of the worst subclasses in the game.

You've totally lost me here, by what metric do you consider it to be "one of the worst" when even only comparing it to Fighter subclasses (of which there are a surprising amount published at this point) it's near the top. It's not even the worst out of the PHB fighter subclasses. You believe it's at or even below the efficacy of PDK and Arcane Archer, which are generally agreed to be not just the Fighter's worst subclasses but potentially the worst subclasses of this edition?

I really couldn't disagree with your opinion here more, Battlemaster is fantastic.

[iTreeby]

Battlemaster is one of the worst subclasses in the game.

A couple times a short rest you can do things... Which menacing is about the one actual good thing they get that isn't either useless or should be at-will.

Menacing requires a hit, a failed will save, and creatures not immune to being frightened. Not exactly a good feature to rely on.

Edit

Also, yeah, Hypnotic Pattern turns martials into a much bigger threat due to enemies not being able to respond at all. Multiple enemies at one time. One save to one round of not doing anything.

Champion is not as good as battlemaster, eldritch knight is possibly better, but more MAD. Most ranger subclasses are not as good... Sorcerer subclasses are not very good in general but not all classes get as much from subclasses. What fighter subclass is better than battlemaster in your opinion?

[LudicSavant]

limited use attacks like......? Like the ones you're talking about here, for starters:


yes, you need to have landed an attack

Which... wait for it... means you gotta make a successful roll in order to use the ability.


this statement, inherently compares fireball to things that 'martials gotta roll' for. Mhm.


and the things martials gotta roll for? are all, almost exclusively at-will abilities.
Ah, so you do realize that there are martial abilities that aren't at-will.

So why on earth did you leap to the assumption that I was exclusively talking about at-will abilities, despite me making no statement to that effect (and several to the contrary, starting with my very first reply to you on page 1)? I would have no reason to make that exclusion.

What's worse, when you finally did look back and see that --


you never explicitly said it

-- you just doubled down and insisted that I must have meant it anyways, even though it's not what I said.

As such I don't see a point to continuing this conversation.