Our group is facing an enemy that is flying 10ft in the air (there is 10ft from their feet to the ground). Our Barbarian is a bit over 6ft tall and directly under them. I'm saying that without having to jump the barbarian should be in non-reach weapon range (5ft) of the flier. Which would allow for sneak attack and the likes to activate. What say you all?
I'd allow it. As long as a target is within attack range, you do not need to move in order to attack them. Vertical distances don't come up too often in combat, so the rules are a bit lax in that department.
Nah. You can reach a creature that occupies most of a 5 foot cube when you can move to and strike from any portion of your adjacent 5 foot cube. Just common sense, the tip of the barbarian's weapon might barely reach the 10 foot mark. They won't be able to attack very effectively. Imagine an analogous scenario where you have a 15 foot wide room. 6 feet from the east wall are a set of iron bars. The barbarian is east of them, and an enemy is moving across the west wall. You cannot reasonably say the barbarian is occupying the center square by being within one foot of it. The barbarian can attack the center square by sticking their arm and weapon through the bars, but cannot reach the westernmost square.
A medium creature which occupies a 5 foot space/square, and has a reach of 5 feet can only reach into spaces/square within 5 feet of it. This goes both for 2D and 3D if you transfer to cubic space.
Basically your size determine your space not your height and if a flying creature is 10 feet away from you, it's respective to your space occupied, not your height.
Our group is facing an enemy that is flying 10ft in the air (there is 10ft from their feet to the ground). Our Barbarian is a bit over 6ft tall and directly under them. I'm saying that without having to jump the barbarian should be in non-reach weapon range (5ft) of the flier. Which would allow for sneak attack and the likes to activate. What say you all?
The Barbarian, like all medium creatures, basically threatens a cube 15ft on each side, but a third of that cube is underground, so that part won't matter 99% of the time. A creature with a 5ft space between it and the ground is low enough to be within the Barbarian's reach. It's within 5ft of him. But if that creature instead has 10ft between it and the ground, then it's more than 5ft from the Barbarian.
It seems to me that on average, being really tall is a debuff in D&D. That's a long and involved debate, I'm sure, and we can have it if you want, but I'm not going to waste time on it unless asked. If you agree, you could give him additional vertical reach to compensate, but understand that you're in the realm of house rules now. I think it hardly matters much.
Flying monsters always, always, always force DMs to make some kind of house rule. In my last campaign the Fighter was using harpoons to pull them down. In another game, characters were jumping up and attacking. Do whatever works for your group.
The rules are a little sketchy when you start looking at a vertical axis on a grid. Most of the grid rules are written from an entirely 2D perspective. And the situation you describe is where certain gaps in the rules really make explaining why the 8ft tall goliath wielding a massive 5 ft long greatsword can't hit something 2 ft away from his face. I homebrew a solution for it, personally, that small creatures are entirely within a 5ft cube but medium creatures in two vertically stacked 5 ft cubes. Because every way you slice it, if you're taller than 5ft, you're in two squares, you just are.
But keep in mind Grid rules, while common, are optional. So if they're not covering something you can default to how the normal rules handle them. So, as for actual written rules... there are some things to help guide your rulings.
Reach rules and jump rules.
Melee attacks require that the target is within reach of you. Typically that means 5ft, as found in the combat rules.
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach.
.
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack.
Now, this is, again, really written from a 2D perspective. This is a very well understood practical rule for how everyone interacts while standing on the ground. But when we get that vertical axis involved, we need some extra guidance. Jumping rules talk directly about moving up, and also talk about vertical reach.
When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier (minimum of 0 feet) if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance.
.
You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus, you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1 1/2 times your height.
So your reach, vertically, is 1 and a half times your height. And jumping lets you reach a bit further than that.
That, ultimately, is the RAW answer: You can generally reach 5ft of you, if you're 6 ft tall that's 11 ft up. When you jump you can reach 1.5x height plus jump distance, so if you jump 3 ft, and are 6ft, you can reach 12 ft up. Either way, he could reach a target 10 ft off the ground.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That, ultimately, is the RAW answer: You can generally reach 5ft of you, if you're 6 ft tall that's 11 ft up. When you jump you can reach 1.5x height plus jump distance, so if you jump 3 ft, and are 6ft, you can reach 12 ft up. Either way, he could reach a target 10 ft off the ground.
That's assuming the creature you're targeting occupies the full 5 vertical feet of the cube it's in. If it's small, or if it's "air-prone" (flying superman style), no part of it might be below 12 feet. Even if a tiny bit is, I think you would at least have disadvantage based on how small a target it presents. Realistically, it's hard to do lethal damage if all you can hit is their heel.
That, ultimately, is the RAW answer: You can generally reach 5ft of you, if you're 6 ft tall that's 11 ft up. When you jump you can reach 1.5x height plus jump distance, so if you jump 3 ft, and are 6ft, you can reach 12 ft up. Either way, he could reach a target 10 ft off the ground.
I think I would probably allow it, but you're definitely taking an opportunity attack when you start falling.
Just imagine that the combat grid is 3 dimensional.
If you allow the barbarian to attack a creature that is 2 cubes away from it, they should be able to attack something that is 2 cubes away from it horizontally as well as vertically, which of course they can't without a reach weapon.
If a creature is Large it occupies 8 cubes. If a creature is Huge, such as a Giant, then that creature occupies 27 cubes in total. A creature flying 10 feet above the ground can attack and be attacked by a Large creature or a Huge creature. The Huge creature can attack something that is 15ft up from the ground with a 5ft reach.
The rules are a little sketchy when you start looking at a vertical axis on a grid. Most of the grid rules are written from an entirely 2D perspective. And the situation you describe is where certain gaps in the rules really make explaining why the 8ft tall goliath wielding a massive 5 ft long greatsword can't hit something 2 ft away from his face. I homebrew a solution for it, personally, that small creatures are entirely within a 5ft cube but medium creatures in two vertically stacked 5 ft cubes. Because every way you slice it, if you're taller than 5ft, you're in two squares, you just are.
But keep in mind Grid rules, while common, are optional. So if they're not covering something you can default to how the normal rules handle them. So, as for actual written rules... there are some things to help guide your rulings.
Reach rules and jump rules.
Melee attacks require that the target is within reach of you. Typically that means 5ft, as found in the combat rules.
The issue is the applicability of Sneak Attack. The problem with the application of the grid is it isn't actually reasonably accounting for the space you physically occupy. While we'd plant a token or miniature in the middle of a square in a drawn out grid, the reality is, their actual position could be anywhere within that five foot square or partially outside of it. So when we talk about the space a creature occupies or distances like 5' apart, we're talking about distance mechanically, not the actual measured distance.
If you want to use measured distance rather than mechanical approximations, you should likely a) do this consistently, and b) actually figure out the rough measurements. I'm over 6' tall. My shoulders (the origin point of my arm's reach), are at about 5'3. I can reach up to about 7' flat-footed. If my goal were to merely occupy physical space or just touch something, I could extend to 10'+ with a rapier, but not with a dagger or my bare hands. (Jumping is irrelevant because the question is not whether or not I can make an attack using movement; it's whether Sneak Attack mechanics apply).
The problem is these same considerations apply horizontally. From the edge of a 5' square, I can conceivably extend all the way across the adjacent square into the square beyond that with weapons like the rapier. It's actually easier for me to do that. So why would that sort of rationale apply vertically, but not horizontally?
As a one-off situation, any ruling works for me in the moment. In range or out of range for the purposes of Sneak Attack, I can see arguments both ways. But outside of the situation unfolding, I'd look for what is most consistent if you are using a grid. As you say, grid rules are optional, so literally, just by being 6' tall, you're within 5' of a creature who is 10' off the ground directly above you, provided you are standing at your full height.
The combat rules are an engine designed to create efficient gameplay. They aren't intended to be a physics engine. It seems strange to start worrying about the specifics of reach and height when our PCs have hit points.
One thing to consider if you are going to go to 3D. Why would a creature choose to fly at 10' when they could fly at 12' and be out of reach of the creature below them?
A creature "occupies" their 5' space but they don't take up the entire area. They can move around to effectively attack any 5' space next to them on the ground. They are not typically standing at the center of their 5' space while attacking all the 5' spaces around them - they aren't big enough.
However, a non-flying creature can NOT move upward to effectively attack spaces above them while the flying creature could occupy any part of their space from 10' to 15' above the ground while remaining in their "5' cube".
The bottom line is that D&D is not well defined for 3D combat .. however, unless the 6' barbarian had a very long (reach) weapon, I don't think that they could effectively engage a flying creature occupying the cube extending from 10' to 15' above the ground since they just can't reach the flying creature that can easily adjust its position within its "cube" to be out of reach of the creature standing on the ground. (A 6' tall barbarian swinging a 2' hammer or even a 3' or 4' sword just can't reach much above 11-12' above the ground and the flying creature can simply be within their 10'-15' high cube and still be effectively out of reach of the barbarian.
This is not how the rules are written, but I don't follow a script when I play as a player character so neither should the DM. I rule that a creature occupies a number of cubes. Their size determines their width and depth and advises what a sensible height would be. For example, a small or medium creature has 5ft of width and depth, and would likely be below 6ft tall. Their height, given by a stat block or rolling tables for a PC/NPC, determines their length, and as long as they occupy half of the space in a cube that is their cube. So a medium creature between 2.5ft and 7.5ft tall will occupy just one cube, a 7.5ft to 12.5ft tall creature will occupy two cubes. This is valid even whilst prone, but you'd change the orientation of the cuboid to horizontal.
In one of my favourite campaigns to DM, one of my players chose to be a Barbarian and flavoured their rage as a physical transformation. At 1st level that meant they gained a few inches whilst raging, and at 14th level they were almost 20ft tall depending on how mad they were. It was entirely managed by the player and didn't reap any benefits because it was only flavour. That was until he fought a batch of flying creatures, and on request I let him hit creatures that were adjacent to any cube he occupied. For this scenario, as a 15ft tall Orc Barbarian he could threaten 33 other cubes. What else was I supposed to say, "You're physically taller than they are flying in the air, but unless they're at your ankles you can't swing for them"? Go for it!
Ultimately it's your decision. I would discourage you to allow players to make choices like my friend did, but I trusted him to not take advantage of this mechanic and he kept himself in check at all times. I'm a stickler for size determining your dimensions from a birdseye view, which makes me question exactly how skinny this 20ft tall Orc was, but you could even change that if it fits your game better. You do you
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Our group is facing an enemy that is flying 10ft in the air (there is 10ft from their feet to the ground). Our Barbarian is a bit over 6ft tall and directly under them. I'm saying that without having to jump the barbarian should be in non-reach weapon range (5ft) of the flier. Which would allow for sneak attack and the likes to activate. What say you all?
Obviously the answers wont affect this combat but I want to know what the consensus would be.
I'd allow it. As long as a target is within attack range, you do not need to move in order to attack them. Vertical distances don't come up too often in combat, so the rules are a bit lax in that department.
Nah. You can reach a creature that occupies most of a 5 foot cube when you can move to and strike from any portion of your adjacent 5 foot cube. Just common sense, the tip of the barbarian's weapon might barely reach the 10 foot mark. They won't be able to attack very effectively. Imagine an analogous scenario where you have a 15 foot wide room. 6 feet from the east wall are a set of iron bars. The barbarian is east of them, and an enemy is moving across the west wall. You cannot reasonably say the barbarian is occupying the center square by being within one foot of it. The barbarian can attack the center square by sticking their arm and weapon through the bars, but cannot reach the westernmost square.
A medium creature which occupies a 5 foot space/square, and has a reach of 5 feet can only reach into spaces/square within 5 feet of it. This goes both for 2D and 3D if you transfer to cubic space.
Basically your size determine your space not your height and if a flying creature is 10 feet away from you, it's respective to your space occupied, not your height.
A medium creature occupies a 5 foot space wether its a 3 foot halfling and a 7 foot goliath.
I once had a tall player character asking if he would occupy 2 squares by drop prone which is similar to the scenario presented
The Barbarian, like all medium creatures, basically threatens a cube 15ft on each side, but a third of that cube is underground, so that part won't matter 99% of the time. A creature with a 5ft space between it and the ground is low enough to be within the Barbarian's reach. It's within 5ft of him. But if that creature instead has 10ft between it and the ground, then it's more than 5ft from the Barbarian.
It seems to me that on average, being really tall is a debuff in D&D. That's a long and involved debate, I'm sure, and we can have it if you want, but I'm not going to waste time on it unless asked. If you agree, you could give him additional vertical reach to compensate, but understand that you're in the realm of house rules now. I think it hardly matters much.
Flying monsters always, always, always force DMs to make some kind of house rule. In my last campaign the Fighter was using harpoons to pull them down. In another game, characters were jumping up and attacking. Do whatever works for your group.
The rules are a little sketchy when you start looking at a vertical axis on a grid. Most of the grid rules are written from an entirely 2D perspective. And the situation you describe is where certain gaps in the rules really make explaining why the 8ft tall goliath wielding a massive 5 ft long greatsword can't hit something 2 ft away from his face. I homebrew a solution for it, personally, that small creatures are entirely within a 5ft cube but medium creatures in two vertically stacked 5 ft cubes. Because every way you slice it, if you're taller than 5ft, you're in two squares, you just are.
But keep in mind Grid rules, while common, are optional. So if they're not covering something you can default to how the normal rules handle them. So, as for actual written rules... there are some things to help guide your rulings.
Reach rules and jump rules.
Melee attacks require that the target is within reach of you. Typically that means 5ft, as found in the combat rules.
Now, this is, again, really written from a 2D perspective. This is a very well understood practical rule for how everyone interacts while standing on the ground. But when we get that vertical axis involved, we need some extra guidance. Jumping rules talk directly about moving up, and also talk about vertical reach.
So your reach, vertically, is 1 and a half times your height. And jumping lets you reach a bit further than that.
That, ultimately, is the RAW answer: You can generally reach 5ft of you, if you're 6 ft tall that's 11 ft up. When you jump you can reach 1.5x height plus jump distance, so if you jump 3 ft, and are 6ft, you can reach 12 ft up. Either way, he could reach a target 10 ft off the ground.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's assuming the creature you're targeting occupies the full 5 vertical feet of the cube it's in. If it's small, or if it's "air-prone" (flying superman style), no part of it might be below 12 feet. Even if a tiny bit is, I think you would at least have disadvantage based on how small a target it presents. Realistically, it's hard to do lethal damage if all you can hit is their heel.
I think I would probably allow it, but you're definitely taking an opportunity attack when you start falling.
Just imagine that the combat grid is 3 dimensional.
If you allow the barbarian to attack a creature that is 2 cubes away from it, they should be able to attack something that is 2 cubes away from it horizontally as well as vertically, which of course they can't without a reach weapon.
If a creature is Large it occupies 8 cubes. If a creature is Huge, such as a Giant, then that creature occupies 27 cubes in total. A creature flying 10 feet above the ground can attack and be attacked by a Large creature or a Huge creature. The Huge creature can attack something that is 15ft up from the ground with a 5ft reach.
The combat rules are an engine designed to create efficient gameplay. They aren't intended to be a physics engine. It seems strange to start worrying about the specifics of reach and height when our PCs have hit points.
One thing to consider if you are going to go to 3D. Why would a creature choose to fly at 10' when they could fly at 12' and be out of reach of the creature below them?
A creature "occupies" their 5' space but they don't take up the entire area. They can move around to effectively attack any 5' space next to them on the ground. They are not typically standing at the center of their 5' space while attacking all the 5' spaces around them - they aren't big enough.
However, a non-flying creature can NOT move upward to effectively attack spaces above them while the flying creature could occupy any part of their space from 10' to 15' above the ground while remaining in their "5' cube".
The bottom line is that D&D is not well defined for 3D combat .. however, unless the 6' barbarian had a very long (reach) weapon, I don't think that they could effectively engage a flying creature occupying the cube extending from 10' to 15' above the ground since they just can't reach the flying creature that can easily adjust its position within its "cube" to be out of reach of the creature standing on the ground. (A 6' tall barbarian swinging a 2' hammer or even a 3' or 4' sword just can't reach much above 11-12' above the ground and the flying creature can simply be within their 10'-15' high cube and still be effectively out of reach of the barbarian.
This is not how the rules are written, but I don't follow a script when I play as a player character so neither should the DM. I rule that a creature occupies a number of cubes. Their size determines their width and depth and advises what a sensible height would be. For example, a small or medium creature has 5ft of width and depth, and would likely be below 6ft tall. Their height, given by a stat block or rolling tables for a PC/NPC, determines their length, and as long as they occupy half of the space in a cube that is their cube. So a medium creature between 2.5ft and 7.5ft tall will occupy just one cube, a 7.5ft to 12.5ft tall creature will occupy two cubes. This is valid even whilst prone, but you'd change the orientation of the cuboid to horizontal.
In one of my favourite campaigns to DM, one of my players chose to be a Barbarian and flavoured their rage as a physical transformation. At 1st level that meant they gained a few inches whilst raging, and at 14th level they were almost 20ft tall depending on how mad they were. It was entirely managed by the player and didn't reap any benefits because it was only flavour. That was until he fought a batch of flying creatures, and on request I let him hit creatures that were adjacent to any cube he occupied. For this scenario, as a 15ft tall Orc Barbarian he could threaten 33 other cubes. What else was I supposed to say, "You're physically taller than they are flying in the air, but unless they're at your ankles you can't swing for them"? Go for it!
Ultimately it's your decision. I would discourage you to allow players to make choices like my friend did, but I trusted him to not take advantage of this mechanic and he kept himself in check at all times. I'm a stickler for size determining your dimensions from a birdseye view, which makes me question exactly how skinny this 20ft tall Orc was, but you could even change that if it fits your game better. You do you