In this section, we are told that "Your turn [the six seconds during which your Action, Bonus Action, and Move take place] can include..."
"...a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move."
"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures"
"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 ... draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action."
This sidebar seems to be referring to the third point from the "Your Turn" section rather than having anything to do with the sections immediately above or below it, so it could just be dndbeyond laying this out in the wrong spot on the page (I don't have a printed PHB in front of me). Doesn't say anything that the third point above didn't already: while moving or taking your action, you can "draw or sheathe a sword."
The Actions in Combat section opens with "When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise." So yes, all of the actions below are those available on your turn (Action, Bonus Action, Move), and not those that might be available off-turn as a reaction. But, that isn't to say that none of the information presented is relevant to discussion of what can or can't be done off turn, rules are not always tidy and bundled into their own sections, we read rules where we find them, not where we want them.
Use an Object opens with: "You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack." This is not a description of how the Use an Object action works, this is a description of what happens the other 99% of the time when you aren't taking that action on your turn. This is a general statement that all day every day, "you normally interact with an object while doing something else," and the example provided is that swords are normally drawn "as part of an attack." Not as part of an attack action, not as part of an attack on your turn, "as part of an attack." The Use an Object section goes on to describe that it is an action you might take on your turn to interact with a more complex object, or to perform more routine interactions than are normally allowed, but that isn't relevant to our question.
Again, we have a sidebar that probably isn't referring so much to the sections immediately above or below it on the dndbeyond page, so much as it is referring back to the language about improvised actions at the start of the "Actions in Combat" section. "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores." These things that you can "do" are not defined as Actions, Bonus Actions, Moves, Reactions, or even free interactions, and thus aren't particularly useful for answering the question of whether a weapon can be drawn as a Reaction... other than the general premise that this section is not intended to be read as an exhaustive list of everything that is possible.
A reaction is a "special action" that can be either on your turn or on someone else's turn. Doesn't contain any language suggesting that this "special action" is any more limited in scope than the other sorts of action type that are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 9.
Read all together, what are we left with?
4: Don't read "this section" (Just Actions in Combat? All of Chapter 9?) as an exhaustive list of what is allowed. I.e., just because free interactions can happen during your turn, don't take that to mean that free interactions can't happen on someone else's turn.
3: Normally, interacting with objects can happen freely alongside other activities. Drawing a sword as part of an attack (any kind of attack, not the Attack Action) is one example.
5: Reactions are just another type of action that you take on someone else's turn, with no special rules limiting their scope. Its regrettable that "action types" and "Action actions" aren't more clearly distinguished, but just like there's no language suggesting that you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack using a Bonus Action, there's no language suggesting that you can't as part of an attack using a Reaction.
1 & 2: Again, drawing swords as part of an attack (whether that attack uses an Action, a Bonus Action, or some other sort of action... like a Reaction?) is a classic example of a free interaction.
Nothing in the text of a monk's Martial Arts feature purports to turn their unarmed strike into anything other than an unarmed strike. Their fists do not become weapons, they are simply (better) unarmed strikes.(1) If a monk is holding a quarterstaff, does he lose the ability to make OA Unarmed Strikes? (2) No. Holding a weapon (be that weapon a regular melee weapon, a Reach melee weapon, or even a ranged weapon) does not change the fact that Unarmed Strikes always threaten squares and can be used to make OA's... because nothing anywhere in the rule books suggests that it does. (3)
Nobody has said anything about that?
Maybe. I don't think they should lose the ability, if any-and-all wielded weapons are 5', but that's what we're trying to figure out. There has to be some kind of consistency.
SAC contains official rulings.
The only thing we know for sure is if you're wielding a weapon with the Reach, Unarmed Strike AoOs are off the table. They would not say, "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 same movement did provoke an unarmed AoO. That would almost entirely eliminate the only drawback of Reach weapons. Nonsense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
In an earlier thread, I took the position that an Opportunity Attack ques off of "your reach" and not "your weapon's reach." This matches the RAW language in Chapter 9, but not everyone agreed with my conclusions (and I made a pretty bonehead blunder by only reading half of the Reach description).
Anyway, I'm left wondering... what (if anything) changes about "your reach" when you are dual wielding a Whip and a non-reach weapon like a Dagger? If you are only wielding a Dagger, you get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away. If you are only wielding a Whip, you don't get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, but do when they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away. Does dual wielding reach and nonreach weapons allow you to choose to take an Opportunity Attack when they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away with the non-reach weapon? If so, to take it even further to a perverse conclusion, since (it's my position that) an Opportunity Attack doesn't normally require you to use any particular weapon when you make the attack, could you make the 5-10 foot OA using the whip, even though the whip wielded alone would only be able to be used on a 10-15 foot OA?
Thoughts?
Specifically addressing your example:
I'm wielding a whip with a 10' reach in my left hand, a dagger with a 5' reach in my right. I have an enemy standing in the square next to me. If he moves one square directly away from me, he's leaving the dagger's reach but not the whip's. If I choose, I can now make an Attack Of Opportunity against him, but only with the dagger. Let's say I choose not to. He then proceeds to move another square directly away from me, now leaving the whip's reach. At this point, I can choose to make an Attack Of Opportunity, but only with the whip. Now, with these two weapons the distinction is small since by default they do the same amount of damage. But if one of the weapons I'm wielding is magical, or if the enemy had resistance to the damage from one weapon but not the other, then the decision of which chance to make an AoO I choose to take matters quite a bit.
... Holding a weapon (be that weapon a regular melee weapon, a Reach melee weapon, or even a ranged weapon) does not change the fact that Unarmed Strikes always threaten squares and can be used to make OA's... because nothing anywhere in the rule books suggests that it does.
...SAC contains official rulings...
Yes, but it is not a "rule book" (core, or expanded), and is not part of a discussion of what the RAW rules are according to the rule books, although it may be very persuasive when applying a modification of a core rules or attempting to interpret an ambiguous core rule. There is no ambiguity here, because there are no rules that say or suggest that wielding a weapon removes your ability to make unarmed strikes, and so SAC is not terribly relevant.
It's a tangent (once an OA is triggered by reference to the weapon I'm wielding, can I draw a different one to complete the OA attack?), but it's the same thread.
In an earlier thread, I took the position that an Opportunity Attack ques off of "your reach" and not "your weapon's reach." This matches the RAW language in Chapter 9, but not everyone agreed with my conclusions (and I made a pretty bonehead blunder by only reading half of the Reach description).
Anyway, I'm left wondering... what (if anything) changes about "your reach" when you are dual wielding a Whip and a non-reach weapon like a Dagger? If you are only wielding a Dagger, you get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away. If you are only wielding a Whip, you don't get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, but do when they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away. Does dual wielding reach and nonreach weapons allow you to choose to take an Opportunity Attack when they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away with the non-reach weapon? If so, to take it even further to a perverse conclusion, since (it's my position that) an Opportunity Attack doesn't normally require you to use any particular weapon when you make the attack, could you make the 5-10 foot OA using the whip, even though the whip wielded alone would only be able to be used on a 10-15 foot OA?
Thoughts?
Specifically addressing your example:
I'm wielding a whip with a 10' reach in my left hand, a dagger with a 5' reach in my right. I have an enemy standing in the square next to me. If he moves one square directly away from me, he's leaving the dagger's reach but not the whip's. If I choose, I can now make an Attack Of Opportunity against him, but only with the dagger. Let's say I choose not to. He then proceeds to move another square directly away from me, now leaving the whip's reach. At this point, I can choose to make an Attack Of Opportunity, but only with the whip. Now, with these two weapons the distinction is small since by default they do the same amount of damage. But if one of the weapons I'm wielding is magical, or if the enemy had resistance to the damage from one weapon but not the other, then the decision of which chance to make an AoO I choose to take matters quite a bit.
1. I'm wielding a whip and a dagger... and I have War Caster.
2. Enemy steps from 5-10 feet, triggering an OA opportunity with my dagger (or, my Unarmed Strike).
3. Using War Caster, I choose to cast Booming Blade instead of using my OA.
4. As part of casting Booming Blade, I make an attack using my Whip.
That is an incontrovertibly allowable progression RAW. All I'm really arguing is, that it still works the same way without laundering the OA opportunity into a spell attack through War Caster, because there's no rules saying that an OA must be completed with any specific weapon, and the only thing standing in its way is an unwritten rule implying that it's illogical to complete an OA with a weapon that wouldn't have triggered on that range. The War Caster interaction already shows that that "pick a weapon and stick with it" isn't the operative rule during a reaction, so I don't think there's a great argument for giving that unwritten RAI rule enough weight to create an unwritten limit on which weapons can be used to complete an OA.
In this section, we are told that "Your turn [the six seconds during which your Action, Bonus Action, and Move take place] can include..."
"...a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move."
"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures"
"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 ... draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action."
This sidebar seems to be referring to the third point from the "Your Turn" section rather than having anything to do with the sections immediately above or below it, so it could just be dndbeyond laying this out in the wrong spot on the page (I don't have a printed PHB in front of me). Doesn't say anything that the third point above didn't already: while moving or taking your action, you can "draw or sheathe a sword."
The Actions in Combat section opens with "When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise." So yes, all of the actions below are those available on your turn (Action, Bonus Action, Move), and not those that might be available off-turn as a reaction. But, that isn't to say that none of the information presented is relevant to discussion of what can or can't be done off turn, rules are not always tidy and bundled into their own sections, we read rules where we find them, not where we want them.
Use an Object opens with: "You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack." This is not a description of how the Use an Object action works, this is a description of what happens the other 99% of the time when you aren't taking that action on your turn. This is a general statement that all day every day, "you normally interact with an object while doing something else," and the example provided is that swords are normally drawn "as part of an attack." Not as part of an attack action, not as part of an attack on your turn, "as part of an attack." The Use an Object section goes on to describe that it is an action you might take on your turn to interact with a more complex object, or to perform more routine interactions than are normally allowed, but that isn't relevant to our question.
Again, we have a sidebar that probably isn't referring so much to the sections immediately above or below it on the dndbeyond page, so much as it is referring back to the language about improvised actions at the start of the "Actions in Combat" section. "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores." These things that you can "do" are not defined as Actions, Bonus Actions, Moves, Reactions, or even free interactions, and thus aren't particularly useful for answering the question of whether a weapon can be drawn as a Reaction... other than the general premise that this section is not intended to be read as an exhaustive list of everything that is possible.
A reaction is a "special action" that can be either on your turn or on someone else's turn. Doesn't contain any language suggesting that this "special action" is any more limited in scope than the other sorts of action type that are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 9.
Read all together, what are we left with?
4: Don't read "this section" (Just Actions in Combat? All of Chapter 9?) as an exhaustive list of what is allowed. I.e., just because free interactions can happen during your turn, don't take that to mean that free interactions can't happen on someone else's turn.
3: Normally, interacting with objects can happen freely alongside other activities. Drawing a sword as part of an attack (any kind of attack, not the Attack Action) is one example.
5: Reactions are just another type of action that you take on someone else's turn, with no special rules limiting their scope. Its regrettable that "action types" and "Action actions" aren't more clearly distinguished, but just like there's no language suggesting that you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack using a Bonus Action, there's no language suggesting that you can't as part of an attack using a Reaction.
1 & 2: Again, drawing swords as part of an attack (whether that attack uses an Action, a Bonus Action, or some other sort of action... like a Reaction?) is a classic example of a free interaction.
You seem to be arguing that bonus actions and reactions are actions in the mechanical sense that allow you to do anything that you could with a regular action on your turn (i.e. they allow you to use any of the "Actions in Combat")? Whereas most of the rest of us interpret them as a special type of action (as they're actually described, thanks for quoting almost but not quite all of the relevant text) that have specific trigger restrictions and specific execution requirements.
1. I'm wielding a whip and a dagger... and I have War Caster.
2. Enemy steps from 5-10 feet, triggering an OA opportunity with my dagger (or, my Unarmed Strike).
3. Using War Caster, I choose to cast Booming Blade instead of using my OA.
4. As part of casting Booming Blade, I make an attack using my Whip.
That is an incontrovertibly allowable progression RAW.
This is all correct.
All I'm really arguing is, that it still works the same way without laundering the OA opportunity into a spell attack through War Caster, because there's no rules saying that an OA must be completed with any specific weapon, and the only thing standing in its way is an unwritten rule implying that it's illogical to complete an OA with a weapon that wouldn't have triggered on that range. The War Caster interaction already shows that that "pick a weapon and stick with it" isn't the operative rule during a reaction, so I don't think there's a great argument for giving that unwritten RAI rule enough weight to create an unwritten limit on which weapons can be used to complete an OA.
The reach property itself is what says you can't make an OA with it at 5 feet.
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 rules could absolutely use some clearing up, but this is RAW, and SAC confirms it is also RAI.
War caster specifically creates an exception that replaces the normal rules of OAs.
However, an AoO can only be made with the weapon whose reach specifically triggered the attack.
Do you have any source for this? It matches my assumption about how the rules worked, but there's nothing in the PHB that says it, and I couldn't find anything in the SAC either. As written, nothing prevents you from making a whip attack as your AoO triggered by an enemy moving out of your dagger's reach.
In an earlier thread, I took the position that an Opportunity Attack ques off of "your reach" and not "your weapon's reach." This matches the RAW language in Chapter 9, but not everyone agreed with my conclusions (and I made a pretty bonehead blunder by only reading half of the Reach description).
Anyway, I'm left wondering... what (if anything) changes about "your reach" when you are dual wielding a Whip and a non-reach weapon like a Dagger? If you are only wielding a Dagger, you get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away. If you are only wielding a Whip, you don't get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, but do when they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away. Does dual wielding reach and nonreach weapons allow you to choose to take an Opportunity Attack when they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away with the non-reach weapon? If so, to take it even further to a perverse conclusion, since (it's my position that) an Opportunity Attack doesn't normally require you to use any particular weapon when you make the attack, could you make the 5-10 foot OA using the whip, even though the whip wielded alone would only be able to be used on a 10-15 foot OA?
Thoughts?
Specifically addressing your example:
I'm wielding a whip with a 10' reach in my left hand, a dagger with a 5' reach in my right. I have an enemy standing in the square next to me. If he moves one square directly away from me, he's leaving the dagger's reach but not the whip's. If I choose, I can now make an Attack Of Opportunity against him, but only with the dagger. Let's say I choose not to. He then proceeds to move another square directly away from me, now leaving the whip's reach. At this point, I can choose to make an Attack Of Opportunity, but only with the whip. Now, with these two weapons the distinction is small since by default they do the same amount of damage. But if one of the weapons I'm wielding is magical, or if the enemy had resistance to the damage from one weapon but not the other, then the decision of which chance to make an AoO I choose to take matters quite a bit.
1. I'm wielding a whip and a dagger... and I have War Caster.
2. Enemy steps from 5-10 feet, triggering an OA opportunity with my dagger (or, my Unarmed Strike).
3. Using War Caster, I choose to cast Booming Blade instead of using my OA.
4. As part of casting Booming Blade, I make an attack using my Whip.
That is an incontrovertibly allowable progression RAW. All I'm really arguing is, that it still works the same way without laundering the OA opportunity into a spell attack through War Caster, because there's no rules saying that an OA must be completed with any specific weapon, and the only thing standing in its way is an unwritten rule implying that it's illogical to complete an OA with a weapon that wouldn't have triggered on that range. The War Caster interaction already shows that that "pick a weapon and stick with it" isn't the operative rule during a reaction, so I don't think there's a great argument for giving that unwritten RAI rule enough weight to create an unwritten limit on which weapons can be used to complete an OA.
I've seen people try to assert that a creature can provoke an AoO with Unarmed Strike by moving 5'->10', use the [Tooltip Not Found] action via War Caster, and then say they use their Glaive as the weapon attack--since Unarmed Strikes do not qualify--for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade.
Quoting myself to show you that what you're saying is willful exploitation. You didn't provoke the attack with your whip; you provoked it with your dagger. Trying to piggyback that into using a different weapon (with or without a weapon cantrip) is the same as trying to piggyback an Unarmed Strike into something else. It's absurd.
Turning your back while leaving my dagger range? Gonna stab you with my dagger. Wait, no, I'm going to stab you with my dagger as I cast GFB or BB. Totally fine.
Turning your back while leaving my dagger range? Gonna stab you with my dagger. Wait, no, I'm going to smack you with my whip--a totally different weapon, which isn't valid at that range--as I cast GFB or BB. Not fine.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Reach applies to only that weapon, and does extend the range AoOs are provoked from. Wielding multiple weapons does create multiple layers of AoO trigger zones. However, an AoO can only be made with the weapon whose reach specifically triggered the attack. You can wield a whip & dagger for zone coverage. I've even recommended it to people in the past; it's an interesting combo that isn't OP or UP. Moving from 5'->10' provokes an attack with the dagger, and moving from 10'->15' provokes an attack with the whip.
Your Unarmed Strike reach is, apparently, not always considered active. If you are wielding weapons, you don't threaten any squares with your Unarmed Strike. I'm a bit ambivalent about all the implications, but leaning on the side of it being a good thing. Here's the Sage Advice (official) entry:
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.
If Unarmed Strike were always available, the creature would always provoke an attack from 5'->10', no matter what they might be actually wielding; that would be highly exploitable. I've seen people try to assert that a creature can provoke an AoO with Unarmed Strike by moving 5'->10', use the [action]Cast a Spell[/spell] action via War Caster, and then say they use their Glaive as the weapon attack--since Unarmed Strikes do not qualify--for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade.
The only way to fill a threatened range gap is with a Whip and another 1H non-reach weapon.
I don't think it is wise to read this Sage Advice entry as having anything to do with unarmed strikes. This paragraph is answering a specific question which has at its core, the assumption that you *want* to make an AoO with a reach weapon. It is not trying to be an exhaustive list of all AoO rules, just a ruling regarding using a reach weapon to make an AoO.
1. I'm wielding a whip and a dagger... and I have War Caster.
2. Enemy steps from 5-10 feet, triggering an OA opportunity with my dagger (or, my Unarmed Strike).
3. Using War Caster, I choose to cast Booming Blade instead of using my OA.
4. As part of casting Booming Blade, I make an attack using my Whip.
That is an incontrovertibly allowable progression RAW. All I'm really arguing is, that it still works the same way without laundering the OA opportunity into a spell attack through War Caster, because there's no rules saying that an OA must be completed with any specific weapon, and the only thing standing in its way is an unwritten rule implying that it's illogical to complete an OA with a weapon that wouldn't have triggered on that range. The War Caster interaction already shows that that "pick a weapon and stick with it" isn't the operative rule during a reaction, so I don't think there's a great argument for giving that unwritten RAI rule enough weight to create an unwritten limit on which weapons can be used to complete an OA.
Warcaster is a bad example.
War Caster
Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell
You have practiced casting spells in the midst of combat, learning techniques that grant you the following benefits:
You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage.
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
When a hostile creature’s movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
You aren't making an opportunity attack, you are casting a spell. Booming Blade just happens to be a spell that requires a melee attack made with it and is therefore a very niche case anyway. Since Specific overcomes General, most examples that invoke Booming Blade are not great examples unless they are talking specifically about the interaction between Booming Blade and some other feature. In your example, you couldn't use Shocking Grasp because it doesn't use a weapon attack. (I'm not saying that Shocking Grasp wouldn't be a valid option, just that it doesn't fit the narrative of your example.)
Reach applies to only that weapon, and does extend the range AoOs are provoked from. Wielding multiple weapons does create multiple layers of AoO trigger zones. However, an AoO can only be made with the weapon whose reach specifically triggered the attack. You can wield a whip & dagger for zone coverage. I've even recommended it to people in the past; it's an interesting combo that isn't OP or UP. Moving from 5'->10' provokes an attack with the dagger, and moving from 10'->15' provokes an attack with the whip.
Your Unarmed Strike reach is, apparently, not always considered active. If you are wielding weapons, you don't threaten any squares with your Unarmed Strike. I'm a bit ambivalent about all the implications, but leaning on the side of it being a good thing. Here's the Sage Advice (official) entry:
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.
If Unarmed Strike were always available, the creature would always provoke an attack from 5'->10', no matter what they might be actually wielding; that would be highly exploitable. I've seen people try to assert that a creature can provoke an AoO with Unarmed Strike by moving 5'->10', use the [Tooltip Not Found] action via War Caster, and then say they use their Glaive as the weapon attack--since Unarmed Strikes do not qualify--for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade.
The only way to fill a threatened range gap is with a Whip and another 1H non-reach weapon.
I don't think it is wise to read this Sage Advice entry as having anything to do with unarmed strikes. This paragraph is answering a specific question which has at its core, the assumption that you *want* to make an AoO with a reach weapon. It is not trying to be an exhaustive list of all AoO rules, just a ruling regarding using a reach weapon to make an AoO.
The War Caster "exploit" is a separate question.
I wholeheartedly disagree. "a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack" means exactly what it says. It doesn't say "but it would trigger an opportunity attack with your Unarmed Strike." That's vital information regardless of how you plan on attacking. If you're wielding a weapon, that's your reach. Otherwise, it negates the purpose of reach weapons having a buffer zone at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's not that I don't see how "ridiculous" it is to be juggling weapons to use the threat range of one to provoke an attack with another... it's just that that the OA rules talk about "your reach" (see the title of this thread), not "your [weapon]'s reach". The question of whether "your reach" is a single range defined by the reach-iest weapon you're wielding (the position taken by JC in his tweet), a shorthand to refer to multiple seperate and exclusive reaches for the weapons you're currently wielding (the position taken by Sigred), or a shorthand to refer to any and all reaches of all weapons and attacks on your person, wielded or otherwise, any one of which can be used to complete the attack once triggered (the position proposed by myself, not because i want it, but because i don't see rules language that prevents it) is what's at the heart of this.
The only rule text I'm seeing that prevents using your whip to complete the 5-10 OA is the language at the tail of the Reach property, bolded by DxJxC. "determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." I'm just feeling like there's multiple "steps" in an OA (Step 1: Check for movement out of your reach to "provoke" an OA, Step 2: If you choose to use a reaction to make the OA, make an attack with one of your weapons), and "determining you reach" is something that happens in Step 1 (provocation), not Step 2 (attack).
But these steps aren't really explicitly laid out, it could just be me trying to chop the OA rules into finer discrete bits than it is meant to be read.
It's not that I don't see how "ridiculous" it is to be juggling weapons to use the threat range of one to provoke an attack with another... it's just that that the OA rules talk about "your reach" (see the title of this thread), not "your [weapon]'s reach". The question of whether "your reach" is a single range defined by the reach-iest weapon you're wielding (the position taken by JC in his tweet), a shorthand to refer to multiple seperate and exclusive reaches for the weapons you're currently wielding (the position taken by Sigred), or a shorthand to refer to any and all reaches of all weapons and attacks on your person, wielded or otherwise, any one of which can be used to complete the attack once triggered (the position proposed by myself, not because i want it, but because i don't see rules language that prevents it) is what's at the heart of this.
The only rule text I'm seeing that prevents using your whip to complete the 5-10 OA is the language at the tail of the Reach property, bolded by DxJxC. "determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." I'm just feeling like there's multiple "steps" in an OA (Step 1: Check for movement out of your reach to "provoke" an OA, Step 2: If you choose to use a reaction to make the OA, make an attack with one of your weapons), and "determining you reach" is something that happens in Step 1 (provocation), not Step 2 (attack).
But these steps aren't really explicitly laid out, it could just be me trying to chop the OA rules into finer discrete bits than it is meant to be read.
"Your weapon's reach" is the same as "Your reach". It is whatever reach is relevant in the moment. Monsters can have multiple reaches, and they do apply independently.
I do think you're chopping up the rules more than intended, yet nobody here is entirely wrong. All of these features are in dire need of developer clarification, and especially with regard to Unarmed Strikes. A Monk (since you mentioned it) should not have their Unarmed Strike threat range negated by choosing to wield a physical weapon, nor should they threaten zero squares if completely unarmed; that would go against the design & theme of the class. I can't say the same about any other class.
a shorthand to refer to any and all reaches of all weapons and attacks on your person, wielded or otherwise, any one of which can be used to complete the attack once triggered
This is the only thing that is dead wrong. There would literally (not figuratively) be no reason to say a reach weapon has a deadzone if you could just piggyback it off of something else.
If you always threaten 5' unarmed (I don't believe you always do), and you could piggyback that into an attack with a Glaive, there's no purpose in saying the Glaive can't just make an AoO at 5' to begin with. Same with Whip/Dagger (except you do threaten 5' with the dagger). If you could piggyback it to a different weapon, there would be no purpose in making the distinction.
I think we need dev clarifications on:
General rule for Unarmed Strike threat range
If general is no threat range from US, then we need a specific rule on Monk US threat range
General rule for multiple threat ranges (weapons).
Specific rule for mixing physical weapons with US (if general is US threatens 5')
Specific rule for piggybacking
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
a shorthand to refer to any and all reaches of all weapons and attacks on your person, wielded or otherwise, any one of which can be used to complete the attack once triggered
This is the only thing that is dead wrong. There would literally (not figuratively) be no reason to say a reach weapon has a deadzone if you could just piggyback it off of something else.
If you always threaten 5' unarmed (I don't believe you always do), and you could piggyback that into an attack with a Glaive, there's no purpose in saying the Glaive can't just make an AoO at 5' to begin with. Same with Whip/Dagger (except you do threaten 5' with the dagger). If you could piggyback it to a different weapon, there would be no purpose in making the distinction.
But that's the thing... nowhere in any rulebook does anything say that there's a deadzone, or that a Gliave can't make an OA at 5'. The only source of that is a JC tweet, and JC tweet aren't rules.
a shorthand to refer to any and all reaches of all weapons and attacks on your person, wielded or otherwise, any one of which can be used to complete the attack once triggered
This is the only thing that is dead wrong. There would literally (not figuratively) be no reason to say a reach weapon has a deadzone if you could just piggyback it off of something else.
If you always threaten 5' unarmed (I don't believe you always do), and you could piggyback that into an attack with a Glaive, there's no purpose in saying the Glaive can't just make an AoO at 5' to begin with. Same with Whip/Dagger (except you do threaten 5' with the dagger). If you could piggyback it to a different weapon, there would be no purpose in making the distinction.
But that's the thing... nowhere in any rulebook does anything say that there's a deadzone, or that a Gliave can't make an OA at 5'. The only source of that is a JC tweet, and JC tweet aren't rules.
Yes, there is a deadzone. The Reach property and Opportunity Attack rule themselves state this. An attack is provoked when a creature exits your reach. Reach weapons extend your reach out by an additional 5'. You can't make an opportunity attack with a Reach weapon at 5'.
[edit] And I'm not basing this on a tweet from JC either. What I quoted at the beginning of all this is directly out of the actual Sage Advice Compendium: official rulings.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think it is wise to read this Sage Advice entry as having anything to do with unarmed strikes. This paragraph is answering a specific question which has at its core, the assumption that you *want* to make an AoO with a reach weapon. It is not trying to be an exhaustive list of all AoO rules, just a ruling regarding using a reach weapon to make an AoO.
I wholeheartedly disagree. "a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack" means exactly what it says. It doesn't say "but it would trigger an opportunity attack with your Unarmed Strike." That's vital information regardless of how you plan on attacking. If you're wielding a weapon, that's your reach. Otherwise, it negates the purpose of reach weapons having a buffer zone at all.
I don't disagree with the literal meaning of that sentence, but this paragraph is not from the PHB rules on attacks of opportunity - it is an answer to a specific question regarding making an AoO *with* a reach weapon. Indeed the preceding sentence in your own quote starts with "If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon...". To assume that this text overrides other rules is overreach. If the question was regarding making an unarmed strike AoO while holding a reach weapon and this sentence was the reply then that would be different.
And the possibility of an unarmed AoO doesn't negate anything much about reach weapons. If you are holding a +2 Flaming Glaive and an enemy moves 5' to 10' you cannot hit them with your glaive. You could punch them in the nose, but then your reaction is used up for that lesser attack and they can move further freely without suffering the greater damage from your actual weapon. This is a major tradeoff, and could result in some very dramatic decisions.
Honestly, the PHB needs a rewrite. Too many rules are vague and underwritten that it causes dozens of exactly these kinds of discussions.
Unending discussions where neither side backs down because the rules as written are inadequate to change the mind of their opposition. The SAC was supposed to help end these arguments, but because "they are not rules," they only serve to make one side even more obstinate while doing nothing to convince the other.
And thus a 40 comment back and forth with no sign of a consensus.
The sections keep getting conflated. There's five worth mentioning:
1. Chapter 9: The Order of Combat - Your Turn:
In this section, we are told that "Your turn [the six seconds during which your Action, Bonus Action, and Move take place] can include..."
2. Chapter 9: Movement & Position - Interacting with Objects Around You sidebar:
This sidebar seems to be referring to the third point from the "Your Turn" section rather than having anything to do with the sections immediately above or below it, so it could just be dndbeyond laying this out in the wrong spot on the page (I don't have a printed PHB in front of me). Doesn't say anything that the third point above didn't already: while moving or taking your action, you can "draw or sheathe a sword."
3. Chapter 9: Actions in Combat - Use an Object:
The Actions in Combat section opens with "When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise." So yes, all of the actions below are those available on your turn (Action, Bonus Action, Move), and not those that might be available off-turn as a reaction. But, that isn't to say that none of the information presented is relevant to discussion of what can or can't be done off turn, rules are not always tidy and bundled into their own sections, we read rules where we find them, not where we want them.
Use an Object opens with: "You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack." This is not a description of how the Use an Object action works, this is a description of what happens the other 99% of the time when you aren't taking that action on your turn. This is a general statement that all day every day, "you normally interact with an object while doing something else," and the example provided is that swords are normally drawn "as part of an attack." Not as part of an attack action, not as part of an attack on your turn, "as part of an attack." The Use an Object section goes on to describe that it is an action you might take on your turn to interact with a more complex object, or to perform more routine interactions than are normally allowed, but that isn't relevant to our question.
4. Chapter 9: Actions in Combat - Improvising an Action sidebar:
Again, we have a sidebar that probably isn't referring so much to the sections immediately above or below it on the dndbeyond page, so much as it is referring back to the language about improvised actions at the start of the "Actions in Combat" section. "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores." These things that you can "do" are not defined as Actions, Bonus Actions, Moves, Reactions, or even free interactions, and thus aren't particularly useful for answering the question of whether a weapon can be drawn as a Reaction... other than the general premise that this section is not intended to be read as an exhaustive list of everything that is possible.
5. Chapter 9: Your Turn - Reactions:
A reaction is a "special action" that can be either on your turn or on someone else's turn. Doesn't contain any language suggesting that this "special action" is any more limited in scope than the other sorts of action type that are discussed elsewhere in Chapter 9.
Read all together, what are we left with?
4: Don't read "this section" (Just Actions in Combat? All of Chapter 9?) as an exhaustive list of what is allowed. I.e., just because free interactions can happen during your turn, don't take that to mean that free interactions can't happen on someone else's turn.
3: Normally, interacting with objects can happen freely alongside other activities. Drawing a sword as part of an attack (any kind of attack, not the Attack Action) is one example.
5: Reactions are just another type of action that you take on someone else's turn, with no special rules limiting their scope. Its regrettable that "action types" and "Action actions" aren't more clearly distinguished, but just like there's no language suggesting that you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack using a Bonus Action, there's no language suggesting that you can't as part of an attack using a Reaction.
1 & 2: Again, drawing swords as part of an attack (whether that attack uses an Action, a Bonus Action, or some other sort of action... like a Reaction?) is a classic example of a free interaction.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The only thing we know for sure is if you're wielding a weapon with the Reach, Unarmed Strike AoOs are off the table. They would not say, "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 same movement did provoke an unarmed AoO. That would almost entirely eliminate the only drawback of Reach weapons. Nonsense.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Wrong thread dude.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Specifically addressing your example:
I'm wielding a whip with a 10' reach in my left hand, a dagger with a 5' reach in my right. I have an enemy standing in the square next to me. If he moves one square directly away from me, he's leaving the dagger's reach but not the whip's. If I choose, I can now make an Attack Of Opportunity against him, but only with the dagger. Let's say I choose not to. He then proceeds to move another square directly away from me, now leaving the whip's reach. At this point, I can choose to make an Attack Of Opportunity, but only with the whip. Now, with these two weapons the distinction is small since by default they do the same amount of damage. But if one of the weapons I'm wielding is magical, or if the enemy had resistance to the damage from one weapon but not the other, then the decision of which chance to make an AoO I choose to take matters quite a bit.
Yes, but it is not a "rule book" (core, or expanded), and is not part of a discussion of what the RAW rules are according to the rule books, although it may be very persuasive when applying a modification of a core rules or attempting to interpret an ambiguous core rule. There is no ambiguity here, because there are no rules that say or suggest that wielding a weapon removes your ability to make unarmed strikes, and so SAC is not terribly relevant.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's a tangent (once an OA is triggered by reference to the weapon I'm wielding, can I draw a different one to complete the OA attack?), but it's the same thread.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
1. I'm wielding a whip and a dagger... and I have War Caster.
2. Enemy steps from 5-10 feet, triggering an OA opportunity with my dagger (or, my Unarmed Strike).
3. Using War Caster, I choose to cast Booming Blade instead of using my OA.
4. As part of casting Booming Blade, I make an attack using my Whip.
That is an incontrovertibly allowable progression RAW. All I'm really arguing is, that it still works the same way without laundering the OA opportunity into a spell attack through War Caster, because there's no rules saying that an OA must be completed with any specific weapon, and the only thing standing in its way is an unwritten rule implying that it's illogical to complete an OA with a weapon that wouldn't have triggered on that range. The War Caster interaction already shows that that "pick a weapon and stick with it" isn't the operative rule during a reaction, so I don't think there's a great argument for giving that unwritten RAI rule enough weight to create an unwritten limit on which weapons can be used to complete an OA.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You seem to be arguing that bonus actions and reactions are actions in the mechanical sense that allow you to do anything that you could with a regular action on your turn (i.e. they allow you to use any of the "Actions in Combat")? Whereas most of the rest of us interpret them as a special type of action (as they're actually described, thanks for quoting almost but not quite all of the relevant text) that have specific trigger restrictions and specific execution requirements.
This is all correct.
The reach property itself is what says you can't make an OA with it at 5 feet.
The rules could absolutely use some clearing up, but this is RAW, and SAC confirms it is also RAI.
War caster specifically creates an exception that replaces the normal rules of OAs.
Do you have any source for this? It matches my assumption about how the rules worked, but there's nothing in the PHB that says it, and I couldn't find anything in the SAC either. As written, nothing prevents you from making a whip attack as your AoO triggered by an enemy moving out of your dagger's reach.
Quoting myself to show you that what you're saying is willful exploitation. You didn't provoke the attack with your whip; you provoked it with your dagger. Trying to piggyback that into using a different weapon (with or without a weapon cantrip) is the same as trying to piggyback an Unarmed Strike into something else. It's absurd.
Turning your back while leaving my dagger range? Gonna stab you with my dagger. Wait, no, I'm going to stab you with my dagger as I cast GFB or BB. Totally fine.
Turning your back while leaving my dagger range? Gonna stab you with my dagger. Wait, no, I'm going to smack you with my whip--a totally different weapon, which isn't valid at that range--as I cast GFB or BB. Not fine.
Can you not see how ridiculous that is?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't think it is wise to read this Sage Advice entry as having anything to do with unarmed strikes. This paragraph is answering a specific question which has at its core, the assumption that you *want* to make an AoO with a reach weapon. It is not trying to be an exhaustive list of all AoO rules, just a ruling regarding using a reach weapon to make an AoO.
The War Caster "exploit" is a separate question.
Warcaster is a bad example.
War Caster
Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell
You have practiced casting spells in the midst of combat, learning techniques that grant you the following benefits:
You aren't making an opportunity attack, you are casting a spell. Booming Blade just happens to be a spell that requires a melee attack made with it and is therefore a very niche case anyway. Since Specific overcomes General, most examples that invoke Booming Blade are not great examples unless they are talking specifically about the interaction between Booming Blade and some other feature. In your example, you couldn't use Shocking Grasp because it doesn't use a weapon attack. (I'm not saying that Shocking Grasp wouldn't be a valid option, just that it doesn't fit the narrative of your example.)
I wholeheartedly disagree. "a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack" means exactly what it says. It doesn't say "but it would trigger an opportunity attack with your Unarmed Strike." That's vital information regardless of how you plan on attacking. If you're wielding a weapon, that's your reach. Otherwise, it negates the purpose of reach weapons having a buffer zone at all.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's not that I don't see how "ridiculous" it is to be juggling weapons to use the threat range of one to provoke an attack with another... it's just that that the OA rules talk about "your reach" (see the title of this thread), not "your [weapon]'s reach". The question of whether "your reach" is a single range defined by the reach-iest weapon you're wielding (the position taken by JC in his tweet), a shorthand to refer to multiple seperate and exclusive reaches for the weapons you're currently wielding (the position taken by Sigred), or a shorthand to refer to any and all reaches of all weapons and attacks on your person, wielded or otherwise, any one of which can be used to complete the attack once triggered (the position proposed by myself, not because i want it, but because i don't see rules language that prevents it) is what's at the heart of this.
The only rule text I'm seeing that prevents using your whip to complete the 5-10 OA is the language at the tail of the Reach property, bolded by DxJxC. "determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." I'm just feeling like there's multiple "steps" in an OA (Step 1: Check for movement out of your reach to "provoke" an OA, Step 2: If you choose to use a reaction to make the OA, make an attack with one of your weapons), and "determining you reach" is something that happens in Step 1 (provocation), not Step 2 (attack).
But these steps aren't really explicitly laid out, it could just be me trying to chop the OA rules into finer discrete bits than it is meant to be read.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Your weapon's reach" is the same as "Your reach". It is whatever reach is relevant in the moment. Monsters can have multiple reaches, and they do apply independently.
I do think you're chopping up the rules more than intended, yet nobody here is entirely wrong. All of these features are in dire need of developer clarification, and especially with regard to Unarmed Strikes. A Monk (since you mentioned it) should not have their Unarmed Strike threat range negated by choosing to wield a physical weapon, nor should they threaten zero squares if completely unarmed; that would go against the design & theme of the class. I can't say the same about any other class.
This is the only thing that is dead wrong. There would literally (not figuratively) be no reason to say a reach weapon has a deadzone if you could just piggyback it off of something else.
If you always threaten 5' unarmed (I don't believe you always do), and you could piggyback that into an attack with a Glaive, there's no purpose in saying the Glaive can't just make an AoO at 5' to begin with. Same with Whip/Dagger (except you do threaten 5' with the dagger). If you could piggyback it to a different weapon, there would be no purpose in making the distinction.
I think we need dev clarifications on:
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
But that's the thing... nowhere in any rulebook does anything say that there's a deadzone, or that a Gliave can't make an OA at 5'. The only source of that is a JC tweet, and JC tweet aren't rules.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes, there is a deadzone. The Reach property and Opportunity Attack rule themselves state this. An attack is provoked when a creature exits your reach. Reach weapons extend your reach out by an additional 5'. You can't make an opportunity attack with a Reach weapon at 5'.
[edit] And I'm not basing this on a tweet from JC either. What I quoted at the beginning of all this is directly out of the actual Sage Advice Compendium: official rulings.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I don't disagree with the literal meaning of that sentence, but this paragraph is not from the PHB rules on attacks of opportunity - it is an answer to a specific question regarding making an AoO *with* a reach weapon. Indeed the preceding sentence in your own quote starts with "If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon...". To assume that this text overrides other rules is overreach. If the question was regarding making an unarmed strike AoO while holding a reach weapon and this sentence was the reply then that would be different.
And the possibility of an unarmed AoO doesn't negate anything much about reach weapons. If you are holding a +2 Flaming Glaive and an enemy moves 5' to 10' you cannot hit them with your glaive. You could punch them in the nose, but then your reaction is used up for that lesser attack and they can move further freely without suffering the greater damage from your actual weapon. This is a major tradeoff, and could result in some very dramatic decisions.
Honestly, the PHB needs a rewrite. Too many rules are vague and underwritten that it causes dozens of exactly these kinds of discussions.
Unending discussions where neither side backs down because the rules as written are inadequate to change the mind of their opposition. The SAC was supposed to help end these arguments, but because "they are not rules," they only serve to make one side even more obstinate while doing nothing to convince the other.
And thus a 40 comment back and forth with no sign of a consensus.