I'm sorry to dig this thread u again, but I have always played with the multiple reaches allow for multiple opportunities for opportunity attacks. I never even had to think about it, personally. I's what makes things like two weapon fighting a little more heafty, and creatures like dragons MUCH more interesting, tactical, and dangerous.
I see the last post on this thread way back in 2018. Have people steered towards one way or another since then?
I also support multiple reaches for both Opportunity Attacks and other reach-dependent situations. That’s part of why I suggest longsword/rapier & whip as such a fantastic combination for two-weapon fighting.
I also support multiple reaches for both Opportunity Attacks and other reach-dependent situations. That’s part of why I suggest longsword/rapier & whip as such a fantastic combination for two-weapon fighting.
I'm starting a new game with some folks and plan on playing a Belmont clan style hunter ranger with a whip and punch-dagger (rapier) with the duel wielder feat. The DM questioned the AoO thing, and I was shocked they'd never thought or heard of that.
I've always interpreted "moves out of reach" is specific to what would be making the attack (weapon or fist). Meaning someone with a rapier and a whip has the following 2 situations:
A creature leaves the range of 5 feet: An opportunity attack can be taken with the rapier, but not the whip, as the whip is a reach weapon.
A creature leaves the range of 10 fee: An opportunity attack can be taken with the whip, but not the rapier, as the rapier does not have reach.
However, you only get to pick one, unless something is granting you a second reaction.
As with everything in D&D, common sense, good gameplay and intention should always overrule what can be deciphered by nitpicking at the rule system to the elaborate degree that takes place in this thread. There are times where rules clarifications make a lot of sense, but it can be taken to crazy extremes. Any time you start looking at a specific feat to back-rule towards general game rules, you've entered one of those times.
The best interpretation is clearly that if you have reaches with different attacks then when the creature leaves any of your reaches, you may make an attack of opportunity with any attack whose reach triggers the attack of opportunity.
If you feel that it's really vital to look through a whole bunch of stuff to pick this apart, I refer you to what the DM's Guide says about shipwrecks:
There are no rules for when a shipwreck occurs. It happens when you want or need it to.
That's the game that you're playing. The DM just decides what happens - play it for what makes most sense to you.
I think the consensus is that RAW does not specify whether or not you have to use the weapon attached to the Reach that used in the trigger, but logical deduction does imply that you have to (you wouldn't be able to swing a 15 ft reach weapon at an enemy that moved from 10 ft to 15ft, but would be able to swing the same weapon if you held a whip in your hand? That doesn't make sense).
I can see allowing opportunity attacks with either weapon when dual wielding a whip and a rapier for example. The character has to choose which to use since they only have one reaction.
However, the aspect of the rules I find less "realistic" is allowing opportunity attacks at either 5' or 10' when armed only with a reach weapon (which should be allowed by RAW).
- the attack of opportunity rules grant a opportunity attack when a creature leaves your reach. These rules do not specify which weapon should be used to make the attack. So if a creature leaves any reach, an attack of opportunity is allowed with any weapon (or a spell with the warcaster feat). So a character with rapier and whip, in which a creature leaves their 5' reach, could make an attack of opportunity with either the rapier or the whip.
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."
"Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it (see chapter 9)."
"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions. Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
- all creatures could make an unarmed strike if they wish - this attack has a 5' reach
- So a creature armed with a weapon with a 10' reach can make an opportunity attack with the polearm when a creature moves beyond either 5' or 10' even though the opportunity attack is triggered by the creature leaving the reach of an unarmed strike.
P.S. The only indication that it might not work is that the reach property specifies determining reach for opportunity attacks with the weapon - but that doesn't necessarily preclude its use for an opportunity attack triggered by the reach of another attack.
- So a creature armed with a weapon with a 10' reach can make an opportunity attack with the polearm when a creature moves beyond either 5' or 10' even though the opportunity attack is triggered by the creature leaving the reach of an unarmed strike.
Moving beyond 5' does not moves you out of reach 10 weapon, which is the trigger for Opportunity Attack with it. Sage Advice says if you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon.
The sage advice RAI that you must use the weapon that triggered the opportunity attack to actually make the attack is fine, and works great for any DM that wants to take that advice.
I would definitely argue it is not RAW. The way I see it there are two particular issues being debated.
A. Does a character wielding both a reach and non-reach weapon have two reaches or just one reach?
B. Can an a character who's opportunity attack is triggered by a shorter range attack use their reach weapon for the attack instead?
For A, I honestly don't think the RAW provides a clarification. For a very strict interpretation I'd lean a bit more towards a character only having one reach, since it seems to only be used in the singular in the rules and never plural. Though I personally prefer to interpret it as the reach of each weapon, rather than the reach of the character. But maybe that's just personal bias.
For B, I think the RAW is actually fairly clear despite the description of Reach, which is being interpreted as some to restrict the weapon usage. Here's my thinking on it. The rule states, "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."
So let's break it down. The effect of the rule is, "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach..." To that is added a qualifier restricting the effect, "when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." In other words the second part of the rule applies only to the first part of the rule, determining when to add 5 feet to your reach.
So if an enemy provokes an OA by leaving your short sword's range (let's say) of 5 ft you can then make an attack. The rules don't say anything about having to make that attack with any specific weapon, merely that you, "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature". So you choose your whip, (for example) to make the attack. The Reach rule states that the weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, (which you are doing) as well as determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it (which you are sort of doing.) However I believe this part of the rule is specifically about the triggering of an opportunity attack. Otherwise it would be redundant. In this case the whip's reach did not trigger the attack so it's more or less mute. However... all of that is actually pointless. The only effect of Reach, is to add 5 feet to your reach, and you don't even need that 5 feet. Your target is still within reach of any normal melee weapon. Reach is literally not applicable. So whether you're gaining the 5 feet bonus to your reach or not is irrelevant when the target is still within 5 feet. So unless you want to argue that you can't make a melee attack at a target that is at a range closer than the reach of a weapon, (which I believe is demonstrably false, but beyond the scope of my argument) I don't see how the rule for Reach in any way restricts what weapon you can choose to attack with during the sequence described above except by following the RAI Sage Advice or your own DM's homebrew interpretation. (Which is not wrong, that's how the game literally works.)
I'm not saying we all have to play it that way either. Just that as written, that seems to be how it would logically work. (Game logic, not RL logic. The written rules spell out concepts and mechanics we can interpret logically, but by this I mean a fully self contained logic. Game rules are not a simulation of real life and no amount of disparity with how things do or could occur in real life has any actual bearing on interpretation of RAW. Anything not covered by the rules or in direct contradiction to the rules is entirely to the DM's discretion. So the rules are really more of a strong suggestion to give players and DM's a standard language to describe the adventure in a way that makes sense and gives both players and DM's some idea what sorts of consequences can result from player's decisions. If players have no sense of what's possible or any idea what their choices will result in then they aren't actually making choices at all, just gambling with any choice just as likely as any other to be good or bad. Granted, it's good to have surprises, but if everything is a total surprise, why bother making any choices at all, just roll dice and live or die... who cares? Sorry... getting a bit philosophical and off topic...)
Why argue RAW if it doesn't matter? Personally I think that RAW is the only part of the rules really worth debating. The RAW is the law, everything else is homebrew. There's nothing wrong with homebrew. In fact very few DM's would bother playing a completely RAW game. There are going to be DM interpretations and rulings. That's what makes the game dynamic and... well... work. But arguing RAI is really just arguing over what flavor you like best, or what genre of music you think sucks. It's just like... your opinion, man. I'm not going to argue against anyone's opinion or the logic behind it. The fact is if you're the DM your justification is, "'cause I said so". And that is entirely RAW. The DM runs the game. But I do think it's worth knowing when you're using RAW and when you're using RAI or homebrew, (which to me is essentially the same thing... In other words if you intended a rule to mean one thing... you should have written that thing. It is informative to see RAI as advice, but it's not the rules. The rules are the rules.) Not that it isn't worth talking about RAI or even homebrew interpretations as useful advice to follow or discard as seen fit. You just can't really debate it. You can't tell a DM his homebrew rules are wrong in his game. They might be stupid, or lame, or amazing, but they aren't right or wrong. They are just that DM's rules. Anyway... Sorry for being so verbose.
RAW does not define or even cover the entire game. It’s something worth considering, but 5E isn’t code in a video game. RAW can be used as an absolute on some things, but the DM is there for a reason.
Exactly. RAW is a baseline that we agree upon up to a point, but can also choose to ignore at the DM's discretion. You need the RAW as somewhere to start so that you have a large base of standardized mechanics and content that all the players can understand just as a starting place. But it does not define or confine the adventure in any way. It's a beginning. But it is important that the base is consistent. The more that the RAW is understood and interpreted correctly the easier it is for the DM to work out their own interpretations and know what does and doesn't need to be explained explicitly to their players. So it's definitely worth discussing. It just is not binding.
Why argue RAW if it doesn't matter? Personally I think that RAW is the only part of the rules really worth debating. The RAW is the law, everything else is homebrew. There's nothing wrong with homebrew. In fact very few DM's would bother playing a completely RAW game. There are going to be DM interpretations and rulings. That's what makes the game dynamic and... well... work. But arguing RAI is really just arguing over what flavor you like best, or what genre of music you think sucks. It's just like... your opinion, man. I'm not going to argue against anyone's opinion or the logic behind it. The fact is if you're the DM your justification is, "'cause I said so". And that is entirely RAW. The DM runs the game. But I do think it's worth knowing when you're using RAW and when you're using RAI or homebrew, (which to me is essentially the same thing... In other words if you intended a rule to mean one thing... you should have written that thing. It is informative to see RAI as advice, but it's not the rules. The rules are the rules.) Not that it isn't worth talking about RAI or even homebrew interpretations as useful advice to follow or discard as seen fit. You just can't really debate it. You can't tell a DM his homebrew rules are wrong in his game. They might be stupid, or lame, or amazing, but they aren't right or wrong. They are just that DM's rules. Anyway... Sorry for being so verbose.
RAI is not at all the same as homebrew. - RAW are the rules exactly as they are written, which is what we as players/DMs interpret. - RAI is one interpretation, namely that of the designers, and is as such the way the game is intended to be run from the designers' perspective. RAI is often the interpretation of RAW that makes the most sense (as it should be), but sometimes other interpretations seem equally valid. - Homebrew is when the game is run in a way that deviates from RAW, i.e. in a way that doesn't make sense according to RAW or isn't covered in RAW.
Why argue RAW if it doesn't matter? Personally I think that RAW is the only part of the rules really worth debating. The RAW is the law, everything else is homebrew. There's nothing wrong with homebrew. In fact very few DM's would bother playing a completely RAW game. There are going to be DM interpretations and rulings. That's what makes the game dynamic and... well... work. But arguing RAI is really just arguing over what flavor you like best, or what genre of music you think sucks. It's just like... your opinion, man. I'm not going to argue against anyone's opinion or the logic behind it. The fact is if you're the DM your justification is, "'cause I said so". And that is entirely RAW. The DM runs the game. But I do think it's worth knowing when you're using RAW and when you're using RAI or homebrew, (which to me is essentially the same thing... In other words if you intended a rule to mean one thing... you should have written that thing. It is informative to see RAI as advice, but it's not the rules. The rules are the rules.) Not that it isn't worth talking about RAI or even homebrew interpretations as useful advice to follow or discard as seen fit. You just can't really debate it. You can't tell a DM his homebrew rules are wrong in his game. They might be stupid, or lame, or amazing, but they aren't right or wrong. They are just that DM's rules. Anyway... Sorry for being so verbose.
RAI is not at all the same as homebrew. - RAW are the rules exactly as they are written, which is what we as players/DMs interpret. - RAI is one interpretation, namely that of the designers, and is as such the way the game is intended to be run from the designers' perspective. RAI is often the interpretation of RAW that makes the most sense (as it should be), but sometimes other interpretations seem equally valid. - Homebrew is when the game is run in a way that deviates from RAW, i.e. in a way that doesn't make sense according to RAW or isn't covered in RAW.
I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of home brew. Much of the game demands rulings and interpretation. That’s not home brew either. That’s how the game is designed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm sorry to dig this thread u again, but I have always played with the multiple reaches allow for multiple opportunities for opportunity attacks. I never even had to think about it, personally. I's what makes things like two weapon fighting a little more heafty, and creatures like dragons MUCH more interesting, tactical, and dangerous.
I see the last post on this thread way back in 2018. Have people steered towards one way or another since then?
??? This thread was created in 2020.
I've always been on the side of creatures having multiple reaches.
LOL!!
I was looking at the join date of a user.
I too have always played with multiple reaches, since day one. I only just today had someone tell me that's not how they thought it worked.
It also doesn't help that various advice from JC on the subject seem to contradict each other.
In this sage advice, he has to clarify his unclear clarification of his unclear rules.
I also support multiple reaches for both Opportunity Attacks and other reach-dependent situations. That’s part of why I suggest longsword/rapier & whip as such a fantastic combination for two-weapon fighting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm starting a new game with some folks and plan on playing a Belmont clan style hunter ranger with a whip and punch-dagger (rapier) with the duel wielder feat. The DM questioned the AoO thing, and I was shocked they'd never thought or heard of that.
I've always interpreted "moves out of reach" is specific to what would be making the attack (weapon or fist). Meaning someone with a rapier and a whip has the following 2 situations:
A creature leaves the range of 5 feet: An opportunity attack can be taken with the rapier, but not the whip, as the whip is a reach weapon.
A creature leaves the range of 10 fee: An opportunity attack can be taken with the whip, but not the rapier, as the rapier does not have reach.
However, you only get to pick one, unless something is granting you a second reaction.
Not to derail the train this tread is on, but doesn't a creature have only one reaction per turn, and has to choose what reaction to take?
Correct. The discussion is about what options are available to choose from.
As with everything in D&D, common sense, good gameplay and intention should always overrule what can be deciphered by nitpicking at the rule system to the elaborate degree that takes place in this thread. There are times where rules clarifications make a lot of sense, but it can be taken to crazy extremes. Any time you start looking at a specific feat to back-rule towards general game rules, you've entered one of those times.
The best interpretation is clearly that if you have reaches with different attacks then when the creature leaves any of your reaches, you may make an attack of opportunity with any attack whose reach triggers the attack of opportunity.
If you feel that it's really vital to look through a whole bunch of stuff to pick this apart, I refer you to what the DM's Guide says about shipwrecks:
There are no rules for when a shipwreck occurs. It happens when you want or need it to.
That's the game that you're playing. The DM just decides what happens - play it for what makes most sense to you.
I think the consensus is that RAW does not specify whether or not you have to use the weapon attached to the Reach that used in the trigger, but logical deduction does imply that you have to (you wouldn't be able to swing a 15 ft reach weapon at an enemy that moved from 10 ft to 15ft, but would be able to swing the same weapon if you held a whip in your hand? That doesn't make sense).
I can see allowing opportunity attacks with either weapon when dual wielding a whip and a rapier for example. The character has to choose which to use since they only have one reaction.
However, the aspect of the rules I find less "realistic" is allowing opportunity attacks at either 5' or 10' when armed only with a reach weapon (which should be allowed by RAW).
- the attack of opportunity rules grant a opportunity attack when a creature leaves your reach. These rules do not specify which weapon should be used to make the attack. So if a creature leaves any reach, an attack of opportunity is allowed with any weapon (or a spell with the warcaster feat). So a character with rapier and whip, in which a creature leaves their 5' reach, could make an attack of opportunity with either the rapier or the whip.
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."
"Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it (see chapter 9)."
"Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions. Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons)."
- all creatures could make an unarmed strike if they wish - this attack has a 5' reach
- So a creature armed with a weapon with a 10' reach can make an opportunity attack with the polearm when a creature moves beyond either 5' or 10' even though the opportunity attack is triggered by the creature leaving the reach of an unarmed strike.
P.S. The only indication that it might not work is that the reach property specifies determining reach for opportunity attacks with the weapon - but that doesn't necessarily preclude its use for an opportunity attack triggered by the reach of another attack.
Just to remind people only the Sage Advice Compendium which is located here https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/sage-advice-compendium counts. JC or any other designer tweets does not matter.
Doesn't matter for what?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Moving beyond 5' does not moves you out of reach 10 weapon, which is the trigger for Opportunity Attack with it. Sage Advice says if you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon.
The sage advice RAI that you must use the weapon that triggered the opportunity attack to actually make the attack is fine, and works great for any DM that wants to take that advice.
I would definitely argue it is not RAW. The way I see it there are two particular issues being debated.
A. Does a character wielding both a reach and non-reach weapon have two reaches or just one reach?
B. Can an a character who's opportunity attack is triggered by a shorter range attack use their reach weapon for the attack instead?
For A, I honestly don't think the RAW provides a clarification. For a very strict interpretation I'd lean a bit more towards a character only having one reach, since it seems to only be used in the singular in the rules and never plural. Though I personally prefer to interpret it as the reach of each weapon, rather than the reach of the character. But maybe that's just personal bias.
For B, I think the RAW is actually fairly clear despite the description of Reach, which is being interpreted as some to restrict the weapon usage. Here's my thinking on it. The rule states, "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."
So let's break it down. The effect of the rule is, "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach..." To that is added a qualifier restricting the effect, "when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." In other words the second part of the rule applies only to the first part of the rule, determining when to add 5 feet to your reach.
So if an enemy provokes an OA by leaving your short sword's range (let's say) of 5 ft you can then make an attack. The rules don't say anything about having to make that attack with any specific weapon, merely that you, "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature". So you choose your whip, (for example) to make the attack. The Reach rule states that the weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, (which you are doing) as well as determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it (which you are sort of doing.) However I believe this part of the rule is specifically about the triggering of an opportunity attack. Otherwise it would be redundant. In this case the whip's reach did not trigger the attack so it's more or less mute. However... all of that is actually pointless. The only effect of Reach, is to add 5 feet to your reach, and you don't even need that 5 feet. Your target is still within reach of any normal melee weapon. Reach is literally not applicable. So whether you're gaining the 5 feet bonus to your reach or not is irrelevant when the target is still within 5 feet. So unless you want to argue that you can't make a melee attack at a target that is at a range closer than the reach of a weapon, (which I believe is demonstrably false, but beyond the scope of my argument) I don't see how the rule for Reach in any way restricts what weapon you can choose to attack with during the sequence described above except by following the RAI Sage Advice or your own DM's homebrew interpretation. (Which is not wrong, that's how the game literally works.)
I'm not saying we all have to play it that way either. Just that as written, that seems to be how it would logically work. (Game logic, not RL logic. The written rules spell out concepts and mechanics we can interpret logically, but by this I mean a fully self contained logic. Game rules are not a simulation of real life and no amount of disparity with how things do or could occur in real life has any actual bearing on interpretation of RAW. Anything not covered by the rules or in direct contradiction to the rules is entirely to the DM's discretion. So the rules are really more of a strong suggestion to give players and DM's a standard language to describe the adventure in a way that makes sense and gives both players and DM's some idea what sorts of consequences can result from player's decisions. If players have no sense of what's possible or any idea what their choices will result in then they aren't actually making choices at all, just gambling with any choice just as likely as any other to be good or bad. Granted, it's good to have surprises, but if everything is a total surprise, why bother making any choices at all, just roll dice and live or die... who cares? Sorry... getting a bit philosophical and off topic...)
Why argue RAW if it doesn't matter? Personally I think that RAW is the only part of the rules really worth debating. The RAW is the law, everything else is homebrew. There's nothing wrong with homebrew. In fact very few DM's would bother playing a completely RAW game. There are going to be DM interpretations and rulings. That's what makes the game dynamic and... well... work. But arguing RAI is really just arguing over what flavor you like best, or what genre of music you think sucks. It's just like... your opinion, man. I'm not going to argue against anyone's opinion or the logic behind it. The fact is if you're the DM your justification is, "'cause I said so". And that is entirely RAW. The DM runs the game. But I do think it's worth knowing when you're using RAW and when you're using RAI or homebrew, (which to me is essentially the same thing... In other words if you intended a rule to mean one thing... you should have written that thing. It is informative to see RAI as advice, but it's not the rules. The rules are the rules.) Not that it isn't worth talking about RAI or even homebrew interpretations as useful advice to follow or discard as seen fit. You just can't really debate it. You can't tell a DM his homebrew rules are wrong in his game. They might be stupid, or lame, or amazing, but they aren't right or wrong. They are just that DM's rules. Anyway... Sorry for being so verbose.
RAW does not define or even cover the entire game. It’s something worth considering, but 5E isn’t code in a video game. RAW can be used as an absolute on some things, but the DM is there for a reason.
Exactly. RAW is a baseline that we agree upon up to a point, but can also choose to ignore at the DM's discretion. You need the RAW as somewhere to start so that you have a large base of standardized mechanics and content that all the players can understand just as a starting place. But it does not define or confine the adventure in any way. It's a beginning. But it is important that the base is consistent. The more that the RAW is understood and interpreted correctly the easier it is for the DM to work out their own interpretations and know what does and doesn't need to be explained explicitly to their players. So it's definitely worth discussing. It just is not binding.
RAI is not at all the same as homebrew.
- RAW are the rules exactly as they are written, which is what we as players/DMs interpret.
- RAI is one interpretation, namely that of the designers, and is as such the way the game is intended to be run from the designers' perspective. RAI is often the interpretation of RAW that makes the most sense (as it should be), but sometimes other interpretations seem equally valid.
- Homebrew is when the game is run in a way that deviates from RAW, i.e. in a way that doesn't make sense according to RAW or isn't covered in RAW.
I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of home brew. Much of the game demands rulings and interpretation. That’s not home brew either. That’s how the game is designed.