Just want to confirm that Unarmed Strike is usually always available in combat. If you are holding a shield and a spear, you could Unarmed Strike with a headbutt, kick, shoulder barge etc?
Does this then mean that in carrying a whip, my AoO range is both 5ft and 10ft respectively?
I think so, so your AoO with Unarmed Strikes should be available at 5 ft.
Unarmed Strike Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
It may be RAW under some readings, but talk to your DM about it. Before you try and do it. It’s certainly non-traditional and a bit on the rules-lawyer loophole/exploit side of the line, as it would apply to all reach weapons. It’s much better to talk it through when you’re not in a combat to give them time to review the rules and make a decision.
Personally, I’d rule no if you have a weapon in your hand I’d say overrides trying to kick someone, and that the unarmed part is to make it clear monks (or other characters with unarmed fighting, or even someone who for some reason has no weapon) can do it.
Also, you make an OA “when a creature you can see leaves your reach.” I’d argue that with a whip in your hand, it moving from 5’ to 10’ means it has not left your reach, so there is no OA.
Finally, remember if you can do it, so can the enemies, so be careful what situation you create.
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. 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.
@samiam8910 If a monster has 2 different reaches, when does it get opportunity attacks? Like the roc’s talons at 5 feet and beak at 10.
@JeremyECrawford If you have more than one reach, a foe provokes an opportunity attack when it leaves any of them. #DnD
@samiam8910 Isn't this directly against your official SA article from July 2015?
@JeremyECrawford The SA answer is only about making an opportunity attack with the reach weapon, not with another reach you might have.
@samiam8910 So the book is incorrect in saying OAs are for when leaving your reach when it should be your weapons' reach
@JeremyECrawford "Your reach" means whatever reach of yours is relevant at the moment.
It may be RAW under some readings, but talk to your DM about it. Before you try and do it. It’s certainly non-traditional and a bit on the rules-lawyer loophole/exploit side of the line, as it would apply to all reach weapons. It’s much better to talk it through when you’re not in a combat to give them time to review the rules and make a decision.
Personally, I’d rule no if you have a weapon in your hand I’d say overrides trying to kick someone, and that the unarmed part is to make it clear monks (or other characters with unarmed fighting, or even someone who for some reason has no weapon) can do it.
Also, you make an OA “when a creature you can see leaves your reach.” I’d argue that with a whip in your hand, it moving from 5’ to 10’ means it has not left your reach, so there is no OA.
Finally, remember if you can do it, so can the enemies, so be careful what situation you create.
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal as long as the OA can only be made with the weapons where Reach was left (e.g. If a character steps 5' from a character using a whip they can be subjected to an OA for Unarmed Attack, not for the whip).
Since characters are generally only allowed one Reaction in a turn the character will need to decide if they want to blow it on Unarmed Attack or else wait and see if the opponent clears the attack that has Reach so they can use their weapon.
It may be RAW under some readings, but talk to your DM about it. Before you try and do it. It’s certainly non-traditional and a bit on the rules-lawyer loophole/exploit side of the line, as it would apply to all reach weapons. It’s much better to talk it through when you’re not in a combat to give them time to review the rules and make a decision.
Personally, I’d rule no if you have a weapon in your hand I’d say overrides trying to kick someone, and that the unarmed part is to make it clear monks (or other characters with unarmed fighting, or even someone who for some reason has no weapon) can do it.
Also, you make an OA “when a creature you can see leaves your reach.” I’d argue that with a whip in your hand, it moving from 5’ to 10’ means it has not left your reach, so there is no OA.
Finally, remember if you can do it, so can the enemies, so be careful what situation you create.
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal as long as the OA can only be made with the weapons where Reach was left (e.g. If a character steps 5' from a character using a whip they can be subjected to an OA for Unarmed Attack, not for the whip).
Since characters are generally only allowed one Reaction in a turn the character will need to decide if they want to blow it on Unarmed Attack or else wait and see if the opponent clears the attack that has Reach so they can use their weapon.
I get that, but unarmed attacks are a bit different now, as they can be used to grapple or shove, which (iirc, I may be wrong) didn’t used to be the case. So that unarmed OA has a battlefield control power it didn’t used to have. For the grapple, at least, I get you’re need a free hand, which means you’re giving up a shield or a second weapon, so that’s a pretty big sacrifice for something that won’t likely come up very often. And with a whip, it’s likely a dex build, so the unarmed strike isn’t likely to be very good. So maybe that’s not too bad. But that’s why I’m saying talk to your DM.
I get that, but unarmed attacks are a bit different now, as they can be used to grapple or shove, which (iirc, I may be wrong) didn’t used to be the case. So that unarmed OA has a battlefield control power it didn’t used to have. [...]
Yes, that's right:
Opportunity Attacks You can make an Opportunity Attack when a creature that you can see leaves your reach using its action, its Bonus Action, its Reaction, or one of its speeds. To make the Opportunity Attack, take a Reaction to make one melee attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach. See also chapter 1 (“Combat”).
And as you said, an Unarmed Strike can be now Damage, Grapple or Shove.
@jd2319 What if I'm dual-wielding a dagger and a whip, can I use the dagger when someone leaves my 5' but stays w/in 10'? @JeremyECrawford If you want to make an opportunity attack with X, the attack is triggered when a foe leaves the reach of X. X = weapon you want to use @thethain Awesome! So does that mean you can always make a 5ft unarmed Opportunity Attack, IE if holding a two handed weapon? @JeremyECrawford Unless a feature tells you otherwise, you have a 5 ft. reach with your unarmed strikes, and you can make opportunity attacks with them.
That means you only get one OA per turn, and depending on the circumstances, using it depends on if you used your reaction already, and if not, which method of OA will be used to burn the reaction.
Yes, the ability to react OA at 5ft is possible with a unarmed strike, but doing so effectively eliminates any chance of OA at a greater reach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Appreciate the discourse. As an aside, for clarity, the build specifically is using True Strike for all weapon attacks and I'd be using the different ranges of reach for Warcaster replacement AoO, rather than any potential Unarmed Strike control options. I really appreciate your contributions, I'll definitely clarify with my DM :)
Appreciate the discourse. As an aside, for clarity, the build specifically is using True Strike for all weapon attacks and I'd be using the different ranges of reach for Warcaster replacement AoO, rather than any potential Unarmed Strike control options. I really appreciate your contributions, I'll definitely clarify with my DM :)
There is a big discussion about what the Target of the True Strike cantrip is, and this is an example of why deciding an interpretation on it is important.
The majority view seems to be that the caster is the Target of the cantrip and that they then are allowed to make the attack as an effect of the attack. This means that things such as spell attack bonuses do not apply. It would also mean that you cannot use the Warcaster feat to cast True Strike since it specifically states '[w]hen a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.'
There is a strong minority view, however, that interprets the spell as Targeting the attacked creature. In that interpretation Warcaster would work, but it would also open up a can of worms since that makes the attack roll a Spell Attack roll.
Until we get clarification from the designers it will remain a point of contention since there seems to be no irrefutable argument for one side or the other.
I think the majority interpret it that way, but as I said, it is a very strong minority (like 60/40 or something).
Of course maybe my perception is skewing which side is the majority and which side is the minority. Maybe it really is 40/60. Either way, there's a large percentage that would argue that you cannot use True Strike as a Warcaster Reaction.
I think the majority interpret it that way, but as I said, it is a very strong minority (like 60/40 or something).
Of course maybe my perception is skewing which side is the majority and which side is the minority. Maybe it really is 40/60. Either way, there's a large percentage that would argue that you cannot use True Strike as a Warcaster Reaction.
I really appreciate your contributions, I'll definitely clarify with my DM :)
You're welcome, it's best thing to do as in the end it's up to DM.
Absolutely. While we might sit here and debate RAW, RAI, and different interpretations, at the end of the day the DM at the table is the ultimate arbitrator.
Not only that, they are in many ways the 'host' and not only have the ability to modify rules to preserve enjoyment of the game but have almost an obligation to do so. This doesn't mean that they should give every player anything they want, but if slavishly following a given set of rules would cause problems (often in the form of one player disrupting the balance and turning all the other characters into glorified spear bearers) then they should take steps to adjust things so everyone else can continue to enjoy the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just want to confirm that Unarmed Strike is usually always available in combat. If you are holding a shield and a spear, you could Unarmed Strike with a headbutt, kick, shoulder barge etc?
Does this then mean that in carrying a whip, my AoO range is both 5ft and 10ft respectively?
I think so, so your AoO with Unarmed Strikes should be available at 5 ft.
It may be RAW under some readings, but talk to your DM about it. Before you try and do it. It’s certainly non-traditional and a bit on the rules-lawyer loophole/exploit side of the line, as it would apply to all reach weapons. It’s much better to talk it through when you’re not in a combat to give them time to review the rules and make a decision.
Personally, I’d rule no if you have a weapon in your hand I’d say overrides trying to kick someone, and that the unarmed part is to make it clear monks (or other characters with unarmed fighting, or even someone who for some reason has no weapon) can do it.
Also, you make an OA “when a creature you can see leaves your reach.” I’d argue that with a whip in your hand, it moving from 5’ to 10’ means it has not left your reach, so there is no OA.
Finally, remember if you can do it, so can the enemies, so be careful what situation you create.
You can have multiple reach, for example many monsters do as well as characters doing Opportunity Attacks with reach weapon.
This subject has been clarified by Devs in Sage Advice Compendium and on Twitter in the past.
It doesn't seem to be that big a deal as long as the OA can only be made with the weapons where Reach was left (e.g. If a character steps 5' from a character using a whip they can be subjected to an OA for Unarmed Attack, not for the whip).
Since characters are generally only allowed one Reaction in a turn the character will need to decide if they want to blow it on Unarmed Attack or else wait and see if the opponent clears the attack that has Reach so they can use their weapon.
I get that, but unarmed attacks are a bit different now, as they can be used to grapple or shove, which (iirc, I may be wrong) didn’t used to be the case. So that unarmed OA has a battlefield control power it didn’t used to have.
For the grapple, at least, I get you’re need a free hand, which means you’re giving up a shield or a second weapon, so that’s a pretty big sacrifice for something that won’t likely come up very often. And with a whip, it’s likely a dex build, so the unarmed strike isn’t likely to be very good. So maybe that’s not too bad. But that’s why I’m saying talk to your DM.
Yes, that's right:
And as you said, an Unarmed Strike can be now Damage, Grapple or Shove.
I'd also like to add the following conversation (link to sageadvice.eu):
Lest one forgets that OA’s burn their reaction.
That means you only get one OA per turn, and depending on the circumstances, using it depends on if you used your reaction already, and if not, which method of OA will be used to burn the reaction.
Yes, the ability to react OA at 5ft is possible with a unarmed strike, but doing so effectively eliminates any chance of OA at a greater reach.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Appreciate the discourse. As an aside, for clarity, the build specifically is using True Strike for all weapon attacks and I'd be using the different ranges of reach for Warcaster replacement AoO, rather than any potential Unarmed Strike control options. I really appreciate your contributions, I'll definitely clarify with my DM :)
There is a big discussion about what the Target of the True Strike cantrip is, and this is an example of why deciding an interpretation on it is important.
The majority view seems to be that the caster is the Target of the cantrip and that they then are allowed to make the attack as an effect of the attack. This means that things such as spell attack bonuses do not apply. It would also mean that you cannot use the Warcaster feat to cast True Strike since it specifically states '[w]hen a creature provokes an Opportunity Attack from you by leaving your reach, you can take a Reaction to cast a spell at the creature rather than making an Opportunity Attack. The spell must have a casting time of one action and must target only that creature.'
There is a strong minority view, however, that interprets the spell as Targeting the attacked creature. In that interpretation Warcaster would work, but it would also open up a can of worms since that makes the attack roll a Spell Attack roll.
Until we get clarification from the designers it will remain a point of contention since there seems to be no irrefutable argument for one side or the other.
The topic @esampson refers to was recently discussed here Is the attack from True Strike both a Weapon and Spell Attack ? - Rules & Game Mechanics - Dungeons & Dragons Discussion - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond
@esampson Mmm... Not sure if it's the majority or minority as you say, at least based on the linked thread provided by @Plaguescarred
Does disagreement exist? 100% sure 😅 Maybe a pool could help.
I think the majority interpret it that way, but as I said, it is a very strong minority (like 60/40 or something).
Of course maybe my perception is skewing which side is the majority and which side is the minority. Maybe it really is 40/60. Either way, there's a large percentage that would argue that you cannot use True Strike as a Warcaster Reaction.
Your reply brought back memories of this thread I created a few months ago: 2024 True Strike vs Booming Blade - Rules & Game Mechanics
You're welcome, it's best thing to do as in the end it's up to DM.
Absolutely. While we might sit here and debate RAW, RAI, and different interpretations, at the end of the day the DM at the table is the ultimate arbitrator.
Not only that, they are in many ways the 'host' and not only have the ability to modify rules to preserve enjoyment of the game but have almost an obligation to do so. This doesn't mean that they should give every player anything they want, but if slavishly following a given set of rules would cause problems (often in the form of one player disrupting the balance and turning all the other characters into glorified spear bearers) then they should take steps to adjust things so everyone else can continue to enjoy the game.