Hi - My DM argues that when a PC moves INTO to reach of a Giant in order to engage it in combat, the PC is subject to an Opportunity Attack, because the reach of a Giant exceeds that of the PC. To my knowledge, Giants in our campaign do not have the Polearm Master feat as a matter of course (nor do they typically fight with polearms). Is it appropriate in 5e for Giants, or any other monster, to receive an Opportunity Attack when a character moves INTO their reach? Thanks!!
It's the DMs BS table rule. Nowhere in the books do giants have that ability. Unless the DM says so, and even then it's a reaction and they only get one per round...unless the DM says so.
I stopped caring about the rules after dealing with rules lawyers and the cardinal rule of DMs game DMs rules.
And a poor one. Almost every Large, Huge, or Gargantuan creature gets reach. Basically he is giving them all a free attack. They are tough enough already.
It's probably someone using their 3.5e memory, where creatures with reach did get a free attack if you charged them. It's not the way opportunity attacks work in 5e, though.
"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."
Nope. The player will have to move out of the reach not into it. The giant can ready an attack as an action.
Nope. It is a house rule in 5e. It may have been the case in earlier editions but it isn't in 5e. Unless the creature has a special ability (like polearm master), opportunity attacks are only provoked when a creature tries to leave your reach not enter it.
You just need to equip a weapon with a 10' reach and start arguing that you automatically get an opportunity attack when a creature enters your reach.
Also, keep in mind that an opportunity attack is only triggered when you leave a creatures reach. If a creature has a 10' reach you can run around it all day, move from 5' to 10' and back and none of it will trigger an opportunity attack. It is only triggered (for a creature with a 10' reach) when you try to move from 10' to 15'.
(Note: There are some folks who argue that since any creature always has the option to make an unarmed strike which has a reach of 5', that even when they have a 10' reach weapon equipped their reach extends to both 5' and 10'. Personally, I think that is a rules lawyer tactic and I don't play that way but you could get folks arguing that a move from 5' to 10' for a creature with a 10' reach could trigger an opportunity attack).
Finally, one thing to remember is that making an opportunity attack uses the creatures reaction and they only have one for the entire round. This means that even if a DM insists that a creature gets an opportunity attack they should only get one unless the DM wants to add more house rules. If you find the house rules are just too broken, too much of a pain, too bothersome, or the DM too inflexible ... then just move on.
Thanks all. I think I will chat with the DM before our Zoom game tomorrow and see what his thoughts are on adhering to the published 5th edition rules since we are getting into the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Otherwise it could be a short game!!! Have fun!!
If the dm still rules the opportunity attacks when you enter there reach you don’t have to worry about them if you need to run away for the rest of the round at least.
So, my campaign - with the agreement of all the players - decided to keep the [insert previous edition here] rule that says "leaving a threatened square" triggers the AoO. (Disengage bypasses this, and we also allow 5' steps as your move to bypass this only so long as you remain in a threatened zone. (No "5' step of freedom".)
So under that opinion, entering the 10' danger zone around a giant *still* doesn't trigger an AoO. However, closing to 5' (so you can attack, for example) *does* unless you have used the Disengage action or stopped and are carefully 5'-stepping closer.
[RAW], though, entering threat is free, and moving within threat is free, so you can run between the giant's legs, play paddleball while down there, then run up to 10' away on the other side, and there is nothing he can do about it.
That prior threatened square rule did a lot to make Reach weapons feel fun, without requiring further feat investment to unlock their potential. As far as minor house rules go, it would help you see a lot more d10 halberd users and d4 whip users around the table, without wholly undercutting the strengths of Sentinel for a character that still wants to invest in specializing in melee zone control.
I like it, the only reason I can see it was dropped in 5e was to speed up/simplify combat, but if you have experienced players that enjoy crunchy combat, feel free to houserule it back in!
That prior threatened square rule did a lot to make Reach weapons feel fun, without requiring further feat investment to unlock their potential. As far as minor house rules go, it would help you see a lot more d10 halberd users and d4 whip users around the table, without wholly undercutting the strengths of Sentinel for a character that still wants to invest in specializing in melee zone control.
I like it, the only reason I can see it was dropped in 5e was to speed up/simplify combat, but if you have experienced players that enjoy crunchy combat, feel free to houserule it back in!
The only issue is if you have a Cavalier at your table and you’re overlapping on their class feature significantly.
In addition to the other clear issues with bringing back the old OA rules to this edition, you'd be shifting the balance of melee & ranged combat to heavily favor ranged combatants (more so than currently).
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.
The other issue is that it seems like the previous edition rule heavily assumes use of a grid, whereas it seems an arbitrary cutoff in theater of the mind. At least in the current rule, the AoO is related to coming to some border of the player's ability to reach you, unlike the old rule. The old rule seems to be about moving "too much" within the reach of another creature, where "too much" is completely arbitrary when considering that 5' move increments are not required.
The intent of the opportunity attack paradigm in 3e was to create the equivalent of wargame zones of control, which in turn are mostly intended to prevent running past enemies in ways that only work because of turn-based movement (in real-time, you stop people from running around you by moving in front of them when they try).
5e opportunity attacks pretty much fail at that, and instead serve the purpose of making it hard to run away from combat.
That’s a good point as well. My grid bias once again at play!
To be honest, I often assume grid play too. But 5e has some design features that don’t assume it at all, and I think this difference in rules between editions is part of that.
The intent of the opportunity attack paradigm in 3e was to create the equivalent of wargame zones of control, which in turn are mostly intended to prevent running past enemies in ways that only work because of turn-based movement (in real-time, you stop people from running around you by moving in front of them when they try).
5e opportunity attacks pretty much fail at that, and instead serve the purpose of making it hard to run away from combat.
Yeah... I think I like the 3e way of doing it better, to be honest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi - My DM argues that when a PC moves INTO to reach of a Giant in order to engage it in combat, the PC is subject to an Opportunity Attack, because the reach of a Giant exceeds that of the PC. To my knowledge, Giants in our campaign do not have the Polearm Master feat as a matter of course (nor do they typically fight with polearms). Is it appropriate in 5e for Giants, or any other monster, to receive an Opportunity Attack when a character moves INTO their reach? Thanks!!
There is no rule about a creature generally provoking opportunity attacks when they move into the threatened area of a creature with a longer reach.
There's no rule saying that they can do that.
If the DM wants them to, they can rule that giants can do that. DMs are all-powerful.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
It's the DMs BS table rule. Nowhere in the books do giants have that ability. Unless the DM says so, and even then it's a reaction and they only get one per round...unless the DM says so.
I stopped caring about the rules after dealing with rules lawyers and the cardinal rule of DMs game DMs rules.
House Rule. Very obviously one.
And a poor one. Almost every Large, Huge, or Gargantuan creature gets reach. Basically he is giving them all a free attack. They are tough enough already.
It's probably someone using their 3.5e memory, where creatures with reach did get a free attack if you charged them. It's not the way opportunity attacks work in 5e, though.
"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."
Nope. The player will have to move out of the reach not into it. The giant can ready an attack as an action.
Nope. It is a house rule in 5e. It may have been the case in earlier editions but it isn't in 5e. Unless the creature has a special ability (like polearm master), opportunity attacks are only provoked when a creature tries to leave your reach not enter it.
You just need to equip a weapon with a 10' reach and start arguing that you automatically get an opportunity attack when a creature enters your reach.
Also, keep in mind that an opportunity attack is only triggered when you leave a creatures reach. If a creature has a 10' reach you can run around it all day, move from 5' to 10' and back and none of it will trigger an opportunity attack. It is only triggered (for a creature with a 10' reach) when you try to move from 10' to 15'.
(Note: There are some folks who argue that since any creature always has the option to make an unarmed strike which has a reach of 5', that even when they have a 10' reach weapon equipped their reach extends to both 5' and 10'. Personally, I think that is a rules lawyer tactic and I don't play that way but you could get folks arguing that a move from 5' to 10' for a creature with a 10' reach could trigger an opportunity attack).
Finally, one thing to remember is that making an opportunity attack uses the creatures reaction and they only have one for the entire round. This means that even if a DM insists that a creature gets an opportunity attack they should only get one unless the DM wants to add more house rules. If you find the house rules are just too broken, too much of a pain, too bothersome, or the DM too inflexible ... then just move on.
Thanks all. I think I will chat with the DM before our Zoom game tomorrow and see what his thoughts are on adhering to the published 5th edition rules since we are getting into the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. Otherwise it could be a short game!!! Have fun!!
If the dm still rules the opportunity attacks when you enter there reach you don’t have to worry about them if you need to run away for the rest of the round at least.
So, my campaign - with the agreement of all the players - decided to keep the [insert previous edition here] rule that says "leaving a threatened square" triggers the AoO. (Disengage bypasses this, and we also allow 5' steps as your move to bypass this only so long as you remain in a threatened zone. (No "5' step of freedom".)
So under that opinion, entering the 10' danger zone around a giant *still* doesn't trigger an AoO. However, closing to 5' (so you can attack, for example) *does* unless you have used the Disengage action or stopped and are carefully 5'-stepping closer.
[RAW], though, entering threat is free, and moving within threat is free, so you can run between the giant's legs, play paddleball while down there, then run up to 10' away on the other side, and there is nothing he can do about it.
That prior threatened square rule did a lot to make Reach weapons feel fun, without requiring further feat investment to unlock their potential. As far as minor house rules go, it would help you see a lot more d10 halberd users and d4 whip users around the table, without wholly undercutting the strengths of Sentinel for a character that still wants to invest in specializing in melee zone control.
I like it, the only reason I can see it was dropped in 5e was to speed up/simplify combat, but if you have experienced players that enjoy crunchy combat, feel free to houserule it back in!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The only issue is if you have a Cavalier at your table and you’re overlapping on their class feature significantly.
True, I guess threatened square OAs are basically half of the Cavalier's 10th level feature.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
In addition to the other clear issues with bringing back the old OA rules to this edition, you'd be shifting the balance of melee & ranged combat to heavily favor ranged combatants (more so than currently).
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.
The other issue is that it seems like the previous edition rule heavily assumes use of a grid, whereas it seems an arbitrary cutoff in theater of the mind. At least in the current rule, the AoO is related to coming to some border of the player's ability to reach you, unlike the old rule. The old rule seems to be about moving "too much" within the reach of another creature, where "too much" is completely arbitrary when considering that 5' move increments are not required.
That’s a good point as well. My grid bias once again at play!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The intent of the opportunity attack paradigm in 3e was to create the equivalent of wargame zones of control, which in turn are mostly intended to prevent running past enemies in ways that only work because of turn-based movement (in real-time, you stop people from running around you by moving in front of them when they try).
5e opportunity attacks pretty much fail at that, and instead serve the purpose of making it hard to run away from combat.
To be honest, I often assume grid play too. But 5e has some design features that don’t assume it at all, and I think this difference in rules between editions is part of that.
Yeah... I think I like the 3e way of doing it better, to be honest.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.