Say I have a caster with the War Caster feat. That means when an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity, I can choose to target them with a spell rather than a weapon. Additionally, I can cast spells even when I have a weapon in one or both hands.
Now let's say I'm wielding a shortsword in one hand and a whip in another. If an enemy leaves 5-foot range, they provoke an attack of opportunity with the shortsword. If they leave 10-foot range they provoke an attack of opportunity with the whip. Because I only have one reaction per turn, I have to pick and choose, but I could theoretically decide to Shocking Grasp at 5ft, or Fire Bolt at 10ft. Right?
Here's the tricky part, though - what if I don't have a shortsword? I have War Caster and a Reach weapon... and I can do unarmed strikes.
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.
The actual scenario is that I'm an Artificer, with the War Caster feat, riding a Steel Defender as a mount, wielding a lance in one hand and a shield in the other. If an enemy moves their full distance directly away from me, I get an Attack of Opportunity with the lance because he passed the 10 ft mark. Because he could theoretically provoke an unarmed strike attack of opportunity at 5ft, can I take that opportunity instead, allowing me to cast a Touch-range spell?
Reach weapons can give you multiple OA ranges. I would make sure the spell doesn't have a somatic component that the lance/shield combo might interfere with.
Reach weapons explicitly extend your OA range. If I have a glaive and an enemy 5 feet from me moves to a space 10 feet from me, they're still within my attack range, which means they don't trigger an attack with the glaive. (It might, however, trigger an attack from an unarmed strike, which is what I'm trying to determine.)
War Caster means you can have both hands occupied by weapons/shields and still use somatic components, so that part doesn't matter.
Do they extend my OA for all attacks? Or just for that weapon? If someone moves 10' away, can I still try to kick them (unarmed strike) as an OA? Or does holding the glaive negate my unarmed strike range?
Reach weapons explicitly extend your OA range. If I have a glaive and an enemy 5 feet from me moves to a space 10 feet from me, they're still within my attack range, which means they don't trigger an attack with the glaive. (It might, however, trigger an attack from an unarmed strike, which is what I'm trying to determine.)
War Caster means you can have both hands occupied by weapons/shields and still use somatic components, so that part doesn't matter.
Yes, it still triggers an OA from your unarmed strike. Here's the definition of reach:
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.
See the "with it" on the end? It only extends your reach for its OAs, not all your OAs. You don't need a glaive for this to come up - same thing happens with a whip, where you can have 3 OA distances: one for the whip, one for a weapon in your other hand, and one for unarmed strike.
The actual scenario is that I'm an Artificer, with the War Caster feat, riding a Steel Defender as a mount, wielding a lance in one hand and a shield in the other. If an enemy moves their full distance directly away from me, I get an Attack of Opportunity with the lance because he passed the 10 ft mark. Because he could theoretically provoke an unarmed strike attack of opportunity at 5ft, can I take that opportunity instead, allowing me to cast a Touch-range spell?
Reach weapons explicitly extend your OA range. If I have a glaive and an enemy 5 feet from me moves to a space 10 feet from me, they're still within my attack range, which means they don't trigger an attack with the glaive. (It might, however, trigger an attack from an unarmed strike, which is what I'm trying to determine.)
War Caster means you can have both hands occupied by weapons/shields and still use somatic components, so that part doesn't matter.
You can even make an opportunity attack with the glaive as they move out of your 5 foot reach. The rules don't say you have to use the weapon with the reach that triggered that attack.
Reach weapons explicitly extend your OA range. If I have a glaive and an enemy 5 feet from me moves to a space 10 feet from me, they're still within my attack range, which means they don't trigger an attack with the glaive. (It might, however, trigger an attack from an unarmed strike, which is what I'm trying to determine.)
War Caster means you can have both hands occupied by weapons/shields and still use somatic components, so that part doesn't matter.
You can even make an opportunity attack with the glaive as they move out of your 5 foot reach. The rules don't say you have to use the weapon with the reach that triggered that attack.
You cant use a reach weapon in a OA if an enemy hasn't left its reach.
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.
EDIT Its also confirmed in a Sage Advice
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach (PH, 195). If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet—beyond your 10-foot reach—the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
Reach weapons explicitly extend your OA range. If I have a glaive and an enemy 5 feet from me moves to a space 10 feet from me, they're still within my attack range, which means they don't trigger an attack with the glaive. (It might, however, trigger an attack from an unarmed strike, which is what I'm trying to determine.)
War Caster means you can have both hands occupied by weapons/shields and still use somatic components, so that part doesn't matter.
You can even make an opportunity attack with the glaive as they move out of your 5 foot reach. The rules don't say you have to use the weapon with the reach that triggered that attack.
You cant use a reach weapon in a OA if an enemy hasn't left its reach.
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.
EDIT Its also confirmed in a Sage Advice
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach (PH, 195). If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet—beyond your 10-foot reach—the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
The rules for opportunity attacks never say you have to use a weapon with a reach equal to the distance (obviously it has to be able to reach the target, but otherwise...).
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
It is one of those RAW vs RAI things. For some reason the rule books rarely say what the writers say.
It really isn't RAW vs RAI. RAI is clear and RAW isn't all that ambiguous either.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
The general rule was written with a single reach distance in mind, and the definition of a reach weapon expands upon it. You would have to try pretty hard to say, "This rule doesn't take multiple reach distances into account, therefore anything is fair game!"
I mean, that sage advice says you can't make any opportunity attacks (including unarmed strike or use war caster) if a creature moves from 5 to 10 feet from you while you wield a reach weapon.
Which is very relevant to the current thread, so we should probably get that figured out.
Opportunity Attacks You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach.
The specific rule regarding the Reach property in the context of OA states:
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.
The reach of your opportunity attack is determined by the weapon you decide to use. If you are wielding a Whip in one hand and nothing in the other, you can only make an opportunity attack with the whip or a ranged spell (assuming you have the Warcaster feat) when a creature leaves your 10-foot reach. Likewise, if a creature leaves your 5-foot reach, you can make an opportunity attack only with your unarmed strike or spell (assuming you have the Warcaster feat).
This Sage Advice by Jeremy Crawford supports this line of thinking.
I mean, that sage advice says you can't make any opportunity attacks (including unarmed strike or use war caster) if a creature moves from 5 to 10 feet from you while you wield a reach weapon.
Which is very relevant to the current thread, so we should probably get that figured out.
Ah, I see what you are saying. It looks like the SAC entry was specifically relevant to the reach weapon, based on the question it claims to be answering. That is to say, it expands upon the general rule for OA only within the scope of a reach weapon, based on the wording of the question: How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks?
Reach weapons explicitly extend your OA range. If I have a glaive and an enemy 5 feet from me moves to a space 10 feet from me, they're still within my attack range, which means they don't trigger an attack with the glaive. (It might, however, trigger an attack from an unarmed strike, which is what I'm trying to determine.)
War Caster means you can have both hands occupied by weapons/shields and still use somatic components, so that part doesn't matter.
You can even make an opportunity attack with the glaive as they move out of your 5 foot reach. The rules don't say you have to use the weapon with the reach that triggered that attack.
You cant use a reach weapon in a OA if an enemy hasn't left its reach.
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.
EDIT Its also confirmed in a Sage Advice
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach (PH, 195). If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet—beyond your 10-foot reach—the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
The rules for opportunity attacks never say you have to use a weapon with a reach equal to the distance (obviously it has to be able to reach the target, but otherwise...).
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
It is one of those RAW vs RAI things. For some reason the rule books rarely say what the writers say.
the reach property explain that itdetermine your reach for opportunity attacks with it. So if a creature hasn't left a your reach with a glaive, it doesn't meet the trigger for OA with it.
Sage Advice also clearly explain it so there is no debate here.
As Dx pointed out, the SAC is trying to create a rule that doesn't exist. An OA checks reach once (when it's triggered), not twice (when it's triggered, and then again as you're making an attack to make sure it's still triggered based on the weapon you choose)
It is true that all creatures have a default 5-foot reach. PHB Chapter 9: "Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."
It is true that a creature always has its Unarmed Strike available to make melee weapon attacks, even when wielding other weapons. PHB Chapter 9.
It is true that wielding a weapon with the Reach property increases "your reach" when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it," not in a way that generally removes your default 5-foot reach with Unarmed Strikes and other non-Reach weapons you're wielding.
It is true you can make an OA whenever a creature you can see moves out of "your reach," we all agree on that, right, and don't need to belabor it? PHB Chapter 9.
ARGUMENT 1: This means that for Opportunity Attacks specifically, you don't have just one "your reach" when wielding a Reach, but rather (1) your default 5-foot reach with Unarmed Strikes (and any non-Reach weapon you're wielding), and also (2) your 5+5-foot reach with your Reach weapon. If we stop here, this should be a very un-controversial ruling. This is all that the original poster really needed answered, but Dx brought up the elephant in the room so we'll go further...
ARGUMENT 2: an OA is triggered before you decide what weapon to use to make the attack: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." If we look at a general case not involving a Reach weapon: if you're wielding a shortsword and an axe, and a monster provokes an OA, the DM is not invited to tell you "they've triggered an OA from you with your Unarmed Strike, an OA from you with your Shortsword, and an OA from you with your Axe. Which Reaction will you take?" No, they just trigger "an Opportunity Attack," singular, which can be resolved in one of several ways at the Player's discretion with the weapons they have available that can reach that creature. That isn't just a matter of natural language... the PHB always refers to it as triggering "a" singular Opportunity Attack, not Opportunity Attacks with a range of weapons.
Supporting ARGUMENT 2A: generally when you are allowed to "make one melee attack," you are allowed to choose to do so with any weapon you're wielding, unless the ability to make that attack has specified a specific weapon. This is a hard premise to find a quote for, other than common sense... but look at the Attack action. We all agree that you can change weapons within an Attack, right, even though it doesn't have any language SAYING you can do so, but rather because it doesn't say you can't? How is Opportunity Attack worded any differently from Attack in that respect?
AGUMENT 3: Even if you disagree that generally you can swap to your glaive to complete an OA triggered by an enemy leaving your default Unarmed Strike 5-foot range... using War Caster to cast Booming Blade (in an alternate universe where that's still possible, which it really isn't) would specifically let you swap to your glaive, because it would entirely replace the OA, with an independent casting of the Cantrip, which itself calls for you to make a melee attack with any weapon you're wielding. For me, this is a moot argument because the SCAGtrips are not War Caster eligible any longer (too many targets)... but if you trust SAC over me, then you should probably find Argument 3 even easier to swallow than Argument 2.
As Dx pointed out, the SAC is trying to create a rule that doesn't exist. An OA checks reach once (when it's triggered), not twice (when it's triggered, and then again as you're making an attack to make sure it's still triggered based on the weapon you choose)
It is true that all creatures have a default 5-foot reach. PHB Chapter 9: "Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack."
It is true that a creature always has its Unarmed Strike available to make melee weapon attacks, even when wielding other weapons. PHB Chapter 9.
It is true that wielding a weapon with the Reach property increases "your reach" when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it," not in a way that generally removes your default 5-foot reach with Unarmed Strikes and other non-Reach weapons you're wielding.
It is true you can make an OA whenever a creature you can see moves out of "your reach," we all agree on that, right, and don't need to belabor it? PHB Chapter 9.
ARGUMENT 1: This means that for Opportunity Attacks specifically, you don't have just one "your reach" when wielding a Reach, but rather (1) your default 5-foot reach with Unarmed Strikes (and any non-Reach weapon you're wielding), and also (2) your 5+5-foot reach with your Reach weapon. If we stop here, this should be a very un-controversial ruling. This is all that the original poster really needed answered, but Dx brought up the elephant in the room so we'll go further...
ARGUMENT 2: an OA is triggered before you decide what weapon to use to make the attack: "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." If we look at a general case not involving a Reach weapon: if you're wielding a shortsword and an axe, and a monster provokes an OA, the DM is not invited to tell you "they've triggered an OA from you with your Unarmed Strike, an OA from you with your Shortsword, and an OA from you with your Axe. Which Reaction will you take?" No, they just trigger "an Opportunity Attack," singular, which can be resolved in one of several ways at the Player's discretion with the weapons they have available that can reach that creature. That isn't just a matter of natural language... the PHB always refers to it as triggering "a" singular Opportunity Attack, not Opportunity Attacks with a range of weapons.
Supporting ARGUMENT 2A: generally when you are allowed to "make one melee attack," you are allowed to choose to do so with any weapon you're wielding, unless the ability to make that attack has specified a specific weapon. This is a hard premise to find a quote for, other than common sense... but look at the Attack action. We all agree that you can change weapons within an Attack, right, even though it doesn't have any language SAYING you can do so, but rather because it doesn't say you can't? How is Opportunity Attack worded any differently from Attack in that respect?
AGUMENT 3: Even if you disagree that generally you can swap to your glaive to complete an OA triggered by an enemy leaving your default Unarmed Strike 5-foot range... using War Caster to cast Booming Blade (in an alternate universe where that's still possible, which it really isn't) would specifically let you swap to your glaive, because it would entirely replace the OA, with an independent casting of the Cantrip, which itself calls for you to make a melee attack with any weapon you're wielding. For me, this is a moot argument because the SCAGtrips are not War Caster eligible any longer (too many targets)... but if you trust SAC over me, then you should probably find Argument 3 even easier to swallow than Argument 2.
I honestly have a hard time making out your point, so I'll address some things that caught my interest instead.
"but look at the Attack action. We all agree that you can change weapons within an Attack, right, even though it doesn't have any language SAYING you can do so, but rather because it doesn't say you can't? How is Opportunity Attack worded any differently from Attack in that respect?"
Other Activity on Your Turn You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
In the above snippet it says plainly that you can use your free action during your move or your action. An opportunity attack happens neither during your move nor your action. I still don't know what you're arguing for so I have no clue if me pointing this out clarifies anything.
Even if you disagree that generally you can swap to your glaive to complete an OA triggered by an enemy leaving your default Unarmed Strike 5-foot range... using War Caster to cast Booming Blade (in an alternate universe where that's still possible, which it really isn't) would specifically let you swap to your glaive, because it would entirely replace the OA, with an independent casting of the Cantrip, which itself calls for you to make a melee attack with any weapon you're wielding. For me, this is a moot argument because the SCAGtrips are not War Caster eligible any longer (too many targets)
I agree that you can use your Glaive in conjunction with a spell calling for a melee attack despite the OA being triggered at 5-foot range. I am not sure I understand why Booming Blade would not be eligible for use with the War Caster feat. It has a single target and doesn't have a range of Self. Unless you believe "Self 5 feet" is not a typo that should've said "Self (5 feet)"?
When wielding a shortsword and a whip, I don't "take the Attack action with my Whip." I "take the Attack action," and then, freely choose for any individual attack whether it's made with a shortsword, a whip, or an Unarmed Strike.
When wielding a shortsword and a whip, a creature does not "trigger an Opportunity Attack reaction from your short sword and Unarmed Strike." They trigger an Opportunity Attack when stepping out from your reach (5 feet), and then the player freely chooses whether to take it with their shortsword, a whip, or an Unarmed Strike since all three can legally target that 5-foot-away creature. If you don't take the OA, and the creature then tries to step out from 10 feet reach, they again just "trigger an Opportunity Attack" when stepping out from your reach (10 feet), and then the player freely chooses what weapon to take it with... which only the Whip can reach a 10-foot away creature, so that's what they use.
I'm not talking about drawing weapons off-turn.
_________________
Feel free to ignore the War Caster thing, I don't want to drag that argument into this thread.
It comes down to whether a Point of Origin for an area of effect spell is a target (as indeed Chapter 10 tells you it is), or if you instead agree with JC (without any textual support) that a point of origin for an AOE is not a target. SAC included his conclusion (that BB is still War Caster eligible after its errata), but not his supporting reasoning (because Points of Origin are not targets) probably because his reasoning is unsupported BS, and the BB errata just wasn't RAI supposed to stop Warcaster, even though it RAW did, and nobody wants to be embarrassed by errataing the errata so they're SAC band-aiding it. Edit: My mistake, both rulings are in SA , but not SAC at all. I dunno/don't care.
Take it or leave it, this thread isn't about that, so take it up in this old thread if you care.
When wielding a shortsword and a whip, I don't "take the Attack action with my Whip." I "take the Attack action," and then, freely choose for any individual attack whether it's made with a shortsword, a whip, or an Unarmed Strike.
When wielding a shortsword and a whip, a creature does not "trigger an Opportunity Attack reaction from your short sword and Unarmed Strike." They trigger an Opportunity Attack when stepping out from your reach (5 feet), and then the player freely chooses whether to take it with their shortsword, a whip, or an Unarmed Strike since all three can legally target that 5-foot-away creature. If you don't take the OA, and the creature then tries to step out from 10 feet reach, they again just "trigger an Opportunity Attack" when stepping out from your reach (10 feet), and then the player freely chooses what weapon to take it with... which only the Whip can reach a 10-foot away creature, so that's what they use.
I'm not talking about drawing weapons off-turn.
_________________
Feel free to ignore the War Caster thing, I don't want to drag that argument into this thread.
It comes down to whether a Point of Origin for an area of effect spell is a target (as indeed Chapter 10 tells you it is), or if you instead agree with JC (without any textual support) that a point of origin for an AOE is not a target. SAC included his conclusion (that BB is still War Caster eligible after its errata), but not his supporting reasoning (because Points of Origin are not targets) probably because his reasoning is unsupported BS, and the BB errata just wasn't RAI supposed to stop Warcaster, even though it RAW did, and nobody wants to be embarrassed by errataing the errata so they're SAC band-aiding it. Edit: My mistake, both rulings are in SA , but not SAC at all. I dunno/don't care.
Take it or leave it, this thread isn't about that, so take it up in this old thread if you care.
Ah I see. Good point, though I still believe an argument can be made that the specificity of the Reach property in regards to OA overrules the general OA rules in the following ways: (1) the "with it" statement most likely means that an OA that is provoked at 10-foot range can only be utilized using this weapon (assuming the range on your other attacks are 5 feet), as you said. It could however also mean that (2) in order to use this weapon for an OA it must break the reach of 10 feet. As in, the condition for using this weapon for an opportunity attack is that the creature exits your 10-foot reach.
That being said, I don't know which interpretation I lean most towards from a RAW perspective.
Lean toward the simplest explanation because this only gets complicated when folks make it complicated. Two weapon reaches mean you have two different OA distance choices.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not all those who wander are lost"
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, hypothetical here:
Say I have a caster with the War Caster feat. That means when an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity, I can choose to target them with a spell rather than a weapon. Additionally, I can cast spells even when I have a weapon in one or both hands.
Now let's say I'm wielding a shortsword in one hand and a whip in another. If an enemy leaves 5-foot range, they provoke an attack of opportunity with the shortsword. If they leave 10-foot range they provoke an attack of opportunity with the whip. Because I only have one reaction per turn, I have to pick and choose, but I could theoretically decide to Shocking Grasp at 5ft, or Fire Bolt at 10ft. Right?
Here's the tricky part, though - what if I don't have a shortsword? I have War Caster and a Reach weapon... and I can do unarmed strikes.
The actual scenario is that I'm an Artificer, with the War Caster feat, riding a Steel Defender as a mount, wielding a lance in one hand and a shield in the other. If an enemy moves their full distance directly away from me, I get an Attack of Opportunity with the lance because he passed the 10 ft mark. Because he could theoretically provoke an unarmed strike attack of opportunity at 5ft, can I take that opportunity instead, allowing me to cast a Touch-range spell?
Reach weapons can give you multiple OA ranges. I would make sure the spell doesn't have a somatic component that the lance/shield combo might interfere with.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Reach weapons explicitly extend your OA range. If I have a glaive and an enemy 5 feet from me moves to a space 10 feet from me, they're still within my attack range, which means they don't trigger an attack with the glaive. (It might, however, trigger an attack from an unarmed strike, which is what I'm trying to determine.)
War Caster means you can have both hands occupied by weapons/shields and still use somatic components, so that part doesn't matter.
Do they extend my OA for all attacks? Or just for that weapon? If someone moves 10' away, can I still try to kick them (unarmed strike) as an OA? Or does holding the glaive negate my unarmed strike range?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes, it still triggers an OA from your unarmed strike. Here's the definition of reach:
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.
See the "with it" on the end? It only extends your reach for its OAs, not all your OAs. You don't need a glaive for this to come up - same thing happens with a whip, where you can have 3 OA distances: one for the whip, one for a weapon in your other hand, and one for unarmed strike.
Yes.
You can even make an opportunity attack with the glaive as they move out of your 5 foot reach. The rules don't say you have to use the weapon with the reach that triggered that attack.
You cant use a reach weapon in a OA if an enemy hasn't left its reach.
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.
EDIT Its also confirmed in a Sage Advice
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach (PH, 195). If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet—beyond your 10-foot reach—the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
The rules for opportunity attacks never say you have to use a weapon with a reach equal to the distance (obviously it has to be able to reach the target, but otherwise...).
It is one of those RAW vs RAI things. For some reason the rule books rarely say what the writers say.
It really isn't RAW vs RAI. RAI is clear and RAW isn't all that ambiguous either.
The general rule was written with a single reach distance in mind, and the definition of a reach weapon expands upon it. You would have to try pretty hard to say, "This rule doesn't take multiple reach distances into account, therefore anything is fair game!"
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I mean, that sage advice says you can't make any opportunity attacks (including unarmed strike or use war caster) if a creature moves from 5 to 10 feet from you while you wield a reach weapon.
Which is very relevant to the current thread, so we should probably get that figured out.
I stand corrected :p
Yes, you can have more OA ranges.
The general rule on OA states:
The specific rule regarding the Reach property in the context of OA states:
The reach of your opportunity attack is determined by the weapon you decide to use. If you are wielding a Whip in one hand and nothing in the other, you can only make an opportunity attack with the whip or a ranged spell (assuming you have the Warcaster feat) when a creature leaves your 10-foot reach.
Likewise, if a creature leaves your 5-foot reach, you can make an opportunity attack only with your unarmed strike or spell (assuming you have the Warcaster feat).
This Sage Advice by Jeremy Crawford supports this line of thinking.
Ah, I see what you are saying. It looks like the SAC entry was specifically relevant to the reach weapon, based on the question it claims to be answering. That is to say, it expands upon the general rule for OA only within the scope of a reach weapon, based on the wording of the question: How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
the reach property explain that it determine your reach for opportunity attacks with it. So if a creature hasn't left a your reach with a glaive, it doesn't meet the trigger for OA with it.
Sage Advice also clearly explain it so there is no debate here.
As Dx pointed out, the SAC is trying to create a rule that doesn't exist. An OA checks reach once (when it's triggered), not twice (when it's triggered, and then again as you're making an attack to make sure it's still triggered based on the weapon you choose)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I honestly have a hard time making out your point, so I'll address some things that caught my interest instead.
"but look at the Attack action. We all agree that you can change weapons within an Attack, right, even though it doesn't have any language SAYING you can do so, but rather because it doesn't say you can't? How is Opportunity Attack worded any differently from Attack in that respect?"
In the above snippet it says plainly that you can use your free action during your move or your action. An opportunity attack happens neither during your move nor your action. I still don't know what you're arguing for so I have no clue if me pointing this out clarifies anything.
Even if you disagree that generally you can swap to your glaive to complete an OA triggered by an enemy leaving your default Unarmed Strike 5-foot range... using War Caster to cast Booming Blade (in an alternate universe where that's still possible, which it really isn't) would specifically let you swap to your glaive, because it would entirely replace the OA, with an independent casting of the Cantrip, which itself calls for you to make a melee attack with any weapon you're wielding. For me, this is a moot argument because the SCAGtrips are not War Caster eligible any longer (too many targets)
I agree that you can use your Glaive in conjunction with a spell calling for a melee attack despite the OA being triggered at 5-foot range.
I am not sure I understand why Booming Blade would not be eligible for use with the War Caster feat. It has a single target and doesn't have a range of Self. Unless you believe "Self 5 feet" is not a typo that should've said "Self (5 feet)"?
Yeah, you missed my point.
When wielding a shortsword and a whip, I don't "take the Attack action with my Whip." I "take the Attack action," and then, freely choose for any individual attack whether it's made with a shortsword, a whip, or an Unarmed Strike.
When wielding a shortsword and a whip, a creature does not "trigger an Opportunity Attack reaction from your short sword and Unarmed Strike." They trigger an Opportunity Attack when stepping out from your reach (5 feet), and then the player freely chooses whether to take it with their shortsword, a whip, or an Unarmed Strike since all three can legally target that 5-foot-away creature. If you don't take the OA, and the creature then tries to step out from 10 feet reach, they again just "trigger an Opportunity Attack" when stepping out from your reach (10 feet), and then the player freely chooses what weapon to take it with... which only the Whip can reach a 10-foot away creature, so that's what they use.
I'm not talking about drawing weapons off-turn.
_________________
Feel free to ignore the War Caster thing, I don't want to drag that argument into this thread.
It comes down to whether a Point of Origin for an area of effect spell is a target (as indeed Chapter 10 tells you it is), or if you instead agree with JC (without any textual support) that a point of origin for an AOE is not a target.
SAC included his conclusion (that BB is still War Caster eligible after its errata), but not his supporting reasoning (because Points of Origin are not targets) probably because his reasoning is unsupported BS, and the BB errata just wasn't RAI supposed to stop Warcaster, even though it RAW did, and nobody wants to be embarrassed by errataing the errata so they're SAC band-aiding it.Edit: My mistake, both rulings are in SA , but not SAC at all. I dunno/don't care.Take it or leave it, this thread isn't about that, so take it up in this old thread if you care.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah I see. Good point, though I still believe an argument can be made that the specificity of the Reach property in regards to OA overrules the general OA rules in the following ways: (1) the "with it" statement most likely means that an OA that is provoked at 10-foot range can only be utilized using this weapon (assuming the range on your other attacks are 5 feet), as you said. It could however also mean that (2) in order to use this weapon for an OA it must break the reach of 10 feet. As in, the condition for using this weapon for an opportunity attack is that the creature exits your 10-foot reach.
That being said, I don't know which interpretation I lean most towards from a RAW perspective.
Lean toward the simplest explanation because this only gets complicated when folks make it complicated. Two weapon reaches mean you have two different OA distance choices.
"Not all those who wander are lost"