Opportunity Attack Question

[NecessaryWeevil]

Hi, this situation came up last session and I wonder if you agree witih my DM (it wasn't worth arguing about in the session).

A and B are hostile to each other. A is 5' west of B. 5' south and between them, a north-south wall begins. A has a 10' reach.
B moves 5' south, so still within 5' of A as 5e measures distance on a battlegrid. The wall begins just to the west of B.
B moves another 5' south, still within A's 10' reach, and in doing acquires cover from A via the wall.
B moves another 5' south, leaving A's 10' reach.

Would you 1) agree that B provokes an opportunity attack with their second movement, as they leave A's reach in the sense of moving into a square that A does not threaten?

Or 2) is B safe because the second move still puts them within A's reach, and they are in total cover when they finally leave A's reach on the third move?

In other words, does leaving a creature's reach mean specifically and only leaving the numerical extent of their reach, or does it mean generally leaving the area they can threaten with a melee attack?

Thanks!

[JNAProductions]

Hi, this situation came up last session and I wonder if you agree witih my DM (it wasn't worth arguing about in the session).

A and B are hostile to each other. A is 5' west of B. 5' south and between them, a north-south wall begins. A has a 10' reach.
B moves 5' south, so still within 5' of A as 5e measures distance on a battlegrid. The wall begins just to the west of B.
B moves another 5' south, still within A's 10' reach, and in doing acquires cover from A via the wall.
B moves another 5' south, leaving A's 10' reach.

Would you 1) agree that B provokes an opportunity attack with their second movement, as they leave A's reach in the sense of moving into a square that A does not threaten?

Or 2) is B safe because the second move still puts them within A's reach, and they are in total cover when they finally leave A's reach on the third move?

In other words, does leaving a creature's reach mean specifically and only leaving the numerical extent of their reach, or does it mean generally leaving the area they can threaten with a melee attack?

Thanks!

I'd rule the latter. Total Cover cuts off part of the reach, so you'd make the attack as they gain Total Cover from you.

I'd probably let the victim benefit from half or three fourths cover, though, representing them being partially behind the wall already.

[pr4wn]

Rules as written I can not find any reference to "threatened" as far as opportunity attacks.

As written: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." Nothing in there about squares you threaten.

As to reach:

For weapon property: p147 PHB "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."

For standard reach: p195 PHB "Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."

If the weapon they are using, or the creature itself has a reach of 10 ft, you do not leave that reach until you are moving more than 10 ft away.

With the situation you described it is option 2, you are under total cover before you provoke, and are therefore safe.


-pr4wn

[Corran]

I'd rule that there's no opportunity attack, because B is within reach while seen. If a glaive user (doesn't have to be a glaive, just mentioning to visualize) cannot make an OA when the enemy is not with his back turned at 10' away (ie moving from 10' away to 15' away), then this means that the glaive is not the sort of weapon with which to make OA's when anything less than this condition is satisfied (maybe because the glaive is too difficult to handle for such a swift strike at such a small distance). Else you would already be doing OA's when the enemy would be moving inside your reach already.

[Tanarii]

Total cover doesn't block reach. It just stops creatures from being targeted.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Okay. So 3/4 Playgrounders agree with me, but my DM isn't alone in his interpretation. Both of those are good to know, thanks.