This is related to another thread, but it is a different question that stands to have an answer.
Does a melee combatant get to use their reaction for an opportunity attack when a target moves within reach into full cover and subsequently, out of reach?
Reach is bold as a creature statistic; the term itself isn't defined. This situation can be most easily imagined by a combatant with a polearm. X is the combatant with a polearm, O is a 5' pillar, Y is another combatant, _ is a blank space.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ O Y _
_ _ X _ _
Y moves to the opposite side of the pillar, gaining total cover, and then continues up, out of reach.
I would argue that the X combatant gets an opportunity attack with no cover, as such attacks occur before they leave reach. My argument hinges on the space behind the pillar being out of X's reach, because he can't attack anything in the space. In other words, the space is out of X's reach, by my argument. The grid is incidental, a mere representation, any arguments hinging on grids are irrelevant.
To support my argument, I refer to burrowing creatures. They provoke when they burrow, even though they're within 5' when they go into the ground. The reason? Because they're leaving reach!
Burrowing creatures don't provoke when they burrow, unless they leave a hole behind them. This is why a Xorn is so annoying.
Note: I understand why 5e made the changes it did to opportunity attacks, the way they worked in 3e and 4e produced very static combats, but I have a great deal of difficulty making sense of what it's supposed to represent.
> Does a melee combatant get to use their reaction for an opportunity attack when a target moves within reach into full cover and subsequently, out of reach?
No. "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
"...the term itself isn't defined" Yes it is. Reach is whatever your reach is - with a longsword it is 5ft, with a glaive or other polearm it is 10 ft. Thus, if a creature exits your reach, you provoke an opportunity attack - unless it is in full cover.
As the above poster said, burrowing creatures only provoke opportunity attacks if they leave a hole. A PC example equivalent to a Xorn would be a druid in Earth Elemental wildshape - something I play in one of my games. Since I burrow without leaving a hole, I do not provoke opportunity attacks - unless my DM says otherwise, because in the end the DM rules the table. (With this particular DM it hasn't come up yet.)
In your example, I would say that no you do not provoke opportunity attacks because the creature is still within your reach. If they were not in your reach, then they would provoke opportunity attacks. Moving into total cover does not provoke opportunity attacks as long as you are within reach, no matter what your reach is.
Without rules lawyering too much, I would say that reach is not solely determined by range. It simply means that if a target starts it's turn in a position that allows you to attack, you will get an opportunity attack against it before it makes a movement that would put it in a position that would not allow you to attack it. So, stepping behind a pillar that would afford full cover without technically leaving range would still provoke an opportunity attack in my mind. So would a burrowing creature leaving a hole behind or not. The opportunity attack is a reaction to the attempt to move away and happens before the move is made. I think this would be a RAI vs RAW discussion but, seems like a cheesy attempt to circumvent an opportunity attack.
Without rules lawyering too much, I would say that reach is not solely determined by range. It simply means that if a target starts it's turn in a position that allows you to attack, you will get an opportunity attack against it before it makes a movement that would put it in a position that would not allow you to attack it. So, stepping behind a pillar that would afford full cover without technically leaving range would still provoke an opportunity attack in my mind. So would a burrowing creature leaving a hole behind or not. The opportunity attack is a reaction to the attempt to move away and happens before the move is made. I think this would be a RAI vs RAW discussion but, seems like a cheesy attempt to circumvent an opportunity attack.
A cheesy attempt to circumvent an opportunity attack? A PC wielding a glaive has an advantage due to its reach that it can make attacks and leave without provoking opportunity attacks where a creature with a longsword would have to Disengage to do so. The trade off comes with opportunity attacks, where the glaive has much more territory that is within its reach than the longsword does. In the example given, if you want to make the opportunity attack you either don't stand next to something that gives cover within your reach, wield a longsword or other non reach weapon, roll a Cavalier 10 for Hold the Line, or find a DM that agrees with your point of view.
Hold the Line
At 10th level, you become a master of locking down your enemies. Creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they move 5 feet or more while within your reach, and if you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the target’s speed is reduced to 0 until the end of the current turn.
Personally, I'd feel terrible ruling that the Human variant barbarian power game rolling a Glaive so that they could GWM and PAM could do something at level 1 that the Cavalier rolling Sword and Board to provide support for the party couldn't do until level 10 just because the power game doesn't feel like their should be any holes in their game and doesn't want to be bothered with playing optimally to support their build. Which player should get the benefit of RAF there?
Ultimately, I think this one is a DM call because the rules don't specifically state what "leaving your reach" means. They don't say how reach is measured. Is Reach measured from the center of your square? Is it measured from the edge of your square?
One interpretation of "leaving your reach" is moving out of range of your attack. However, does the creature doing this trigger the opportunity attack in the square it is leaving or the one it is going to? Presumably since you can't hit the square it is going to because it is out of reach ("range") the opportunity attack has to be triggered in the square it is in or at the edge of the square it is in ... which then gets into the question of how a 5' reach is defined. This is only long enough to reach to the middle or edge of the adjacent square depending on where you are located in your square.
However, perhaps the next square is covered by magical darkness or fog cloud, both of which prevent you from seeing the target and thus preventing an op attack, if they are considered to be entering the next square at the point where the op attack is triggered.
Anyway, since the terms are not defined, it becomes a DM call on how they want to implement it in their game.
Personally, since a creature with a 5' reach can only attack the adjacent square, I think any cover in the NEXT square which is out of reach isn't relevant to determining whether the target can be seen or not when triggering an op attack. So, if a creature tries to move from a 5' reach into a square that is heavily obscured (providing total cover) the op attack would go off before the creature enters that square and gains the benefit of heavy obscurement if only because that square is too far for the creature executing the op attack to reach ... so the op attack has to be made against the square the target is exiting. However, that is a ruling and not explicitly stated in the rules. I just assume that an op attack must be made within the reach of the creature making the op attack so cover provided by other squares as a another creature moves out of that reach can't be relevant.
Note that moving within reach does not cause an op attack and if a creature moves into a darkness or fog cloud without moving out of a creatures reach then the creature that entered the heavy obscurement CAN move away, out of reach, without triggering an opportunity attack because they can no longer be seen (assuming that the creature doesn't have devils sight or blindsight or something else that would allow them to see through the heavily obscured region). Moving into heavy obscurement or other total cover within the reach of an opponent does not trigger an opportunity attack.
P.S. However, this could still be ambiguous depending on whether a DM wants to define "reach" as the distance an attack can actually be made .. i.e. if a creature is moving into total cover that provides a barrier to physical attacks, then a DM could rule that the target is leaving the creatures reach because the creature could not attack the target in its new location. Reach isn't defined except as a distance or range and a DM could extend this definition to include the ability to actually execute an attack against a specific location but it is not stated in the rules that reach has any implication about actually being able to make an attack against a specific location within the reach of their weapon ... so that would likely also fall under rulings and not rules.
Just because you can attack at 10ft with a polearm doesn't mean that an enemy with 5ft reach won't get right in your face, you would still need to Disengage. The rest of your argument is just picking a side when it comes to a situation that is really unnecessary to create. You don' want a PAM/Sentinel AoO combo all the time? Cast spells or shoot at them, send a couple melee instead of one. I think almost every player would find less to complain about with these tactics than a DM blatantly looking for ways to nullify the heavy character investment into their feats.
Just because you can attack at 10ft with a polearm doesn't mean that an enemy with 5ft reach won't get right in your face, you would still need to Disengage. The rest of your argument is just picking a side when it comes to a situation that is really unnecessary to create. You don' want a PAM/Sentinel AoO combo all the time? Cast spells or shoot at them, send a couple melee instead of one. I think almost every player would find less to complain about with these tactics than a DM blatantly looking for ways to nullify the heavy character investment into their feats.
I'm not talking about the times that a creature gets right in their face. That's the same for either the reach weapon and the non-reach weapon. What I'm saying is that if you move into position, stay 10 ft away from the target and attack because you can with a reach weapon, and then move away, you don't need to disengage and you won't provoke opportunity attacks. If you're wielding any other weapon, you can't do that without dipping into rogue or monk for the bonus action disengage, or having Swashbuckler 3 or the Mobile feat. And you're right, I could decide to nullify PAM/GWM (I actually never mentioned Sentinel. The only way that you could have got sentinel is if you focused on the 0 speed at the end of Hold the Line. That wasn't the part that I was talking about. I was talking about the part where they creatures trigger opportunity attacks by moving within reach, which is the part that was being discussed in the thread) by keeping all of the enemy away from the Character using it. I could ensure that all of the enemies have a way to cripple the character so that it can't do anything or worse, that I can turn it and use it against the party. Sounds fun for the player that took all that time and heavy investment into their feats to not get to use them ever. It also sounds fun for the Cavalier that chose the subclass because they wanted those abilities to work in melee to have the entire group designed to stay away have to chase after the rest just to get in range to use any abilities while the players that were lucky enough to have chosen ranged characters are having a blast blasting. I think that's a situation that doesn't need to be created.
As for a DM blatantly looking for ways to nullify the heavy character investment in feats, how would allowing an edge case scenario nullify the feats? Because you didn't get to take 1 OA (that didn't exist and only exists if I as the DM allow it anyway, since I'm the one that makes the enemy characters move to provoke OAs) because there is a weakness to the way that your character is designed? Or are you saying that I should not populate the map with anything that might allow a creature to leave your reach under full cover so that you don't have to worry about positioning?
I'm not looking to nullify anything. If I don't want to deal with GWM, PAM, Lucky, Sentinel, or whatever, it just doesn't make it into the game. Optional Rules and all. I'm finishing up a campaign with no multiclassing and no feats right now. It's been great. I don't DM in an adversarial fashion. Just because I look at a scenario and rule that it doesn't favor your character, it doesn't mean I'm always going to use that tactic and it doesn't mean that I'm trying to take away your fun. I rarely do things that are outside of what the rules say because I like that structure. This is not an area where I would do something that would be outside the rules because it's not that important for me that I "hose" you. My main concern here is that what you are suggesting is something that plays unfairly for the other characters and isn't in the rules.
If you are in an empty field, every square that you can attack is your reach. If you turn that into an overlay like you might for Warhammer or for AoE spells and place that on the grid, then anywhere on flat ground within that is your reach. If there is a 5 ft incline or decline, I'd be willing to grant you an attack there if you had a reach weapon, but I wouldn't a 5 ft reach player without using a ranged option. If there is a pillar or some other form of total cover, you are aren't going to get to make the attack and if your reach includes the square behind that pillar, you aren't going to get an AO if a creature moves behind it because that creature is still in your reach. If you don't want that hole in your OA defenses, take a spear or a quarterstaff. You can wield either with two hands to lose 1 point of average damage. You'll be able to make the OA attacks that you want. It won't interfere with your taking sentinel and PAM, but it won't let you take GWM. If you want GWM and to make those OA attacks, you won't get to benefit from PAM. If you want to be able to benefit from GWM and PAM, then you have to worry about your positioning more so that characters can't leave your reach in a square that you can't target.
Sorry, insurmountable wall of text. PAM let's you use a reaction against 1 opponent each round. I'm afraid I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like you can stop every enemy from getting to you unles you send only one per round, LOL.
Hold the Line is just the warm up. When you have Vigilant Defender and Hold the Line, you will make PAM users very sad.
Sorry, insurmountable wall of text. PAM let's you use a reaction against 1 opponent each round. I'm afraid I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like you can stop every enemy from getting to you unles you send only one per round, LOL.
Hold the Line is just the warm up. When you have Vigilant Defender and Hold the Line, you will make PAM users very sad.
Why would vigilant defender and Hold the Line make PAM users very sad? If the PAM user has both, they will have ample opportunities to OA nearly to their hearts content. They'll have a feel for how I adjudicate and position accordingly. I'll know that they have fun doing OAs, so I'll send ample opportunities for them to utilize those OAs. Meanwhile, there will be intelligent enemies that realize that everything that comes in a certain way gets popped in the face and decides to change their tactics while continuing to send fodder to busy the PAM player.
If the PAM player isn't the Cavalier, they should be happy that the Cavalier is having fun doing something that is close to what they like to do. Taking position in a way to compliment the Cavalier while still getting a lot of opportunities for OAs while avoiding positioning that isn't as favorable for them and being able to use a bonus attack that they probably don't have access to otherwise (GWM crit and kill bonus action likely aside). Having a few intelligent enemies that either have a disengage or other means to prevent the OAs or using terrain effectively merely keeps everything from being the equivalent of putting a rubber band around the controller and letting the game play itself.
Again, I'm don't try to use the rules to get gotcha moments on my players, I use them to help tell fun stories that have some diversity in action.
Forget about PAM. Stick to plain opportunity attacks.
Edit: I suppose the argument ends up the same; what actually is Reach? I won't accept "a radius around a character" unless you actually can find a line in the rules that says "Reach is a radius around the character." emphasis period.
Forget about PAM. Stick to plain opportunity attacks.
Edit: I suppose the argument ends up the same; what actually is Reach? I won't accept "a radius around a character" unless you actually can find a line in the rules that says "Reach is a radius around the character." emphasis period.
That's fine. I won't accept that reach isn't a radius around a character unless you show me where it says otherwise.
Reach from the weapons and armor section. PHB chap 5, pg 147
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.
Melee Attacks (from PHB ch 9, making an attack, pg 195, just before Opportunity Attacks)
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack. 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.
Those are your rules. Neither statement is there. Impasse. Tie goes to the DM, as usual. Question though? If your reach is zero when you're next to a wall, and Reach adds 5 to it, does that mean that your reach was actually -5 to get to zero? Or is it simply that your reach extends as it always does, you simply can't target the area within the wall because of cover?
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
If you want to make an OA against the creature leaving your targetable area, make an unarmed strike.
From the Sage Advice Compendium (found in Sources on here)
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach. If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet — beyond your 10-foot reach — the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
While it doesn't apply much, there are some creatures that have 0 ft reach, such as the swarm of rats. If said swarm of rats were able to use a reach weapon (nevermind the sense in it), that would give them 5 ft reach. Still, they couldn't reach through the wall... which has been belabored enough. Some say full cover limits reach, not because full cover says so, but because reach doesn't say what it really is.
So rules don't tell a GM which way to rule, that's fine, there are plenty of cases like it.
I'd do a brief summary of points for going either way as impartially as possible, to help GMs make a decision. In this thread, it would be regarding opportunity attacks, but since it's so closely tied to PAM... that probably should be included since the one ruling would affect both. Unfortunately ... I have other things to see to at the moment...
While it doesn't apply much, there are some creatures that have 0 ft reach, such as the swarm of rats. If said swarm of rats were able to use a reach weapon (nevermind the sense in it), that would give them 5 ft reach. Still, they couldn't reach through the wall... which has been belabored enough. Some say full cover limits reach, not because full cover says so, but because reach doesn't say what it really is.
So rules don't tell a GM which way to rule, that's fine, there are plenty of cases like it.
I'd do a brief summary of points for going either way as impartially as possible, to help GMs make a decision. In this thread, it would be regarding opportunity attacks, but since it's so closely tied to PAM... that probably should be included since the one ruling would affect both. Unfortunately ... I have other things to see to at the moment...
My main goal with these discussions is to provide a reasonable foundation for DMs to decide what side that they fall on. I'll DM the way that I think it should go, but I'll rarely argue with the DM on a call that they make. If it's something that sounds like they might be rusty on, I'll bring it up in session, but I'm trying not to do that as much. I'd prefer it be discussed out of session as a DM so I try to watch my tongue on it.
I don't think that I'd have a problem with your presentation of reach generally as a DM, but it does get close to stepping on toes for certain builds and I try not to do that. I have noticed that the majority of these types of discussions usually involve something optional like feats or multiclassing. There's so little definition in those areas that the best you'll get for a definitive answer is what is presented on these forums. Sometimes you get a good feel for one side or another, sometimes it's still as muddy as before.
Forget about PAM. Stick to plain opportunity attacks.
Edit: I suppose the argument ends up the same; what actually is Reach? I won't accept "a radius around a character" unless you actually can find a line in the rules that says "Reach is a radius around the character." emphasis period.
That's fine. I won't accept that reach isn't a radius around a character unless you show me where it says otherwise.
Reach from the weapons and armor section. PHB chap 5, pg 147
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.
Melee Attacks (from PHB ch 9, making an attack, pg 195, just before Opportunity Attacks)
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack. 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.
Those are your rules. Neither statement is there. Impasse. Tie goes to the DM, as usual. Question though? If your reach is zero when you're next to a wall, and Reach adds 5 to it, does that mean that your reach was actually -5 to get to zero? Or is it simply that your reach extends as it always does, you simply can't target the area within the wall because of cover?
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
If you want to make an OA against the creature leaving your targetable area, make an unarmed strike.
From the Sage Advice Compendium (found in Sources on here)
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach. If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet — beyond your 10-foot reach — the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
My interpretation of ADDING 5 FEET TO YOUR REACH does not imply that your reach is 10 feet. It is now 5 OR 10 feet. Giant have a reach of 10 feet, they can hit you at 5 feet if they choose. Many other creatures follow this design.
Forget about PAM. Stick to plain opportunity attacks.
Edit: I suppose the argument ends up the same; what actually is Reach? I won't accept "a radius around a character" unless you actually can find a line in the rules that says "Reach is a radius around the character." emphasis period.
That's fine. I won't accept that reach isn't a radius around a character unless you show me where it says otherwise.
Reach from the weapons and armor section. PHB chap 5, pg 147
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.
Melee Attacks (from PHB ch 9, making an attack, pg 195, just before Opportunity Attacks)
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack. 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.
Those are your rules. Neither statement is there. Impasse. Tie goes to the DM, as usual. Question though? If your reach is zero when you're next to a wall, and Reach adds 5 to it, does that mean that your reach was actually -5 to get to zero? Or is it simply that your reach extends as it always does, you simply can't target the area within the wall because of cover?
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
If you want to make an OA against the creature leaving your targetable area, make an unarmed strike.
From the Sage Advice Compendium (found in Sources on here)
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach. If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet — beyond your 10-foot reach — the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
My interpretation of ADDING 5 FEET TO YOUR REACH does not imply that your reach is 10 feet. It is now 5 OR 10 feet. Giant have a reach of 10 feet, they can hit you at 5 feet if they choose. Many other creatures follow this design.
I'm not saying that you can't attack normally at 5 ft.
When you are talking OAs, it's a different deal.
"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."
I can see using the exception of moving behind total cover for taking a 5 ft OA with a reach weapon. There is enough support for the normal reach for OAs being at 10 ft at least more most PCs. Exceptions like the burrowing creatures are like the pillar example and subject to interpretation. There is even support through JCs tweets that you could make a 5 ft OA with an unarmed strike if you want to take that OA.
As always, the DM has final say and we're clearly talking past each other, so I'll wish you a good day.
My interpretation of ADDING 5 FEET TO YOUR REACH does not imply that your reach is 10 feet. It is now 5 OR 10 feet. Giant have a reach of 10 feet, they can hit you at 5 feet if they choose. Many other creatures follow this design.
This discussion is not about whether you can attack within your reach. No one is going to argue that. The question is what it means to enter your reach. If I start my turn 5 feet away from your giant and move adjacent, he can't make an OA because I did not enter his reach.
Now what if that square I started in was totally obscured and I was suddenly visible to the giant when I moved up? That's the argument and we've reached an impasse there.
Also, I'm sorry for whatever DM hurt you, but we're not all evil metagamers hell bent on confounding all player options. When I (very occasionally) circumvent the PAM/Sentinel guy in my group it's done in order to challenge the party and it's generally done in a situation where it makes sense that the party tactics are known and a smart enemy would try to counter them. I don't want to defeat the characters and frustrate the players - I'm just trying to keep things interesting and avoid every combat being exactly the same. The guy still generally gets to use his reaction for something else and gets his 3 other attacks a round so I think he's ok.
This is related to another thread, but it is a different question that stands to have an answer.
Does a melee combatant get to use their reaction for an opportunity attack when a target moves within reach into full cover and subsequently, out of reach?
Reach is bold as a creature statistic; the term itself isn't defined. This situation can be most easily imagined by a combatant with a polearm. X is the combatant with a polearm, O is a 5' pillar, Y is another combatant, _ is a blank space.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ O Y _
_ _ X _ _
Y moves to the opposite side of the pillar, gaining total cover, and then continues up, out of reach.
I would argue that the X combatant gets an opportunity attack with no cover, as such attacks occur before they leave reach. My argument hinges on the space behind the pillar being out of X's reach, because he can't attack anything in the space. In other words, the space is out of X's reach, by my argument. The grid is incidental, a mere representation, any arguments hinging on grids are irrelevant.
To support my argument, I refer to burrowing creatures. They provoke when they burrow, even though they're within 5' when they go into the ground. The reason? Because they're leaving reach!
HOWEVER, what do you think?
Burrowing creatures don't provoke when they burrow, unless they leave a hole behind them. This is why a Xorn is so annoying.
Note: I understand why 5e made the changes it did to opportunity attacks, the way they worked in 3e and 4e produced very static combats, but I have a great deal of difficulty making sense of what it's supposed to represent.
> Does a melee combatant get to use their reaction for an opportunity attack when a target moves within reach into full cover and subsequently, out of reach?
No. "A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle."
"...the term itself isn't defined"
Yes it is. Reach is whatever your reach is - with a longsword it is 5ft, with a glaive or other polearm it is 10 ft. Thus, if a creature exits your reach, you provoke an opportunity attack - unless it is in full cover.
As the above poster said, burrowing creatures only provoke opportunity attacks if they leave a hole. A PC example equivalent to a Xorn would be a druid in Earth Elemental wildshape - something I play in one of my games. Since I burrow without leaving a hole, I do not provoke opportunity attacks - unless my DM says otherwise, because in the end the DM rules the table. (With this particular DM it hasn't come up yet.)
In your example, I would say that no you do not provoke opportunity attacks because the creature is still within your reach. If they were not in your reach, then they would provoke opportunity attacks. Moving into total cover does not provoke opportunity attacks as long as you are within reach, no matter what your reach is.
Without rules lawyering too much, I would say that reach is not solely determined by range. It simply means that if a target starts it's turn in a position that allows you to attack, you will get an opportunity attack against it before it makes a movement that would put it in a position that would not allow you to attack it. So, stepping behind a pillar that would afford full cover without technically leaving range would still provoke an opportunity attack in my mind. So would a burrowing creature leaving a hole behind or not. The opportunity attack is a reaction to the attempt to move away and happens before the move is made. I think this would be a RAI vs RAW discussion but, seems like a cheesy attempt to circumvent an opportunity attack.
A cheesy attempt to circumvent an opportunity attack? A PC wielding a glaive has an advantage due to its reach that it can make attacks and leave without provoking opportunity attacks where a creature with a longsword would have to Disengage to do so. The trade off comes with opportunity attacks, where the glaive has much more territory that is within its reach than the longsword does. In the example given, if you want to make the opportunity attack you either don't stand next to something that gives cover within your reach, wield a longsword or other non reach weapon, roll a Cavalier 10 for Hold the Line, or find a DM that agrees with your point of view.
Hold the Line
At 10th level, you become a master of locking down your enemies. Creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they move 5 feet or more while within your reach, and if you hit a creature with an opportunity attack, the target’s speed is reduced to 0 until the end of the current turn.
Personally, I'd feel terrible ruling that the Human variant barbarian power game rolling a Glaive so that they could GWM and PAM could do something at level 1 that the Cavalier rolling Sword and Board to provide support for the party couldn't do until level 10 just because the power game doesn't feel like their should be any holes in their game and doesn't want to be bothered with playing optimally to support their build. Which player should get the benefit of RAF there?
Ultimately, I think this one is a DM call because the rules don't specifically state what "leaving your reach" means. They don't say how reach is measured. Is Reach measured from the center of your square? Is it measured from the edge of your square?
One interpretation of "leaving your reach" is moving out of range of your attack. However, does the creature doing this trigger the opportunity attack in the square it is leaving or the one it is going to? Presumably since you can't hit the square it is going to because it is out of reach ("range") the opportunity attack has to be triggered in the square it is in or at the edge of the square it is in ... which then gets into the question of how a 5' reach is defined. This is only long enough to reach to the middle or edge of the adjacent square depending on where you are located in your square.
However, perhaps the next square is covered by magical darkness or fog cloud, both of which prevent you from seeing the target and thus preventing an op attack, if they are considered to be entering the next square at the point where the op attack is triggered.
Anyway, since the terms are not defined, it becomes a DM call on how they want to implement it in their game.
Personally, since a creature with a 5' reach can only attack the adjacent square, I think any cover in the NEXT square which is out of reach isn't relevant to determining whether the target can be seen or not when triggering an op attack. So, if a creature tries to move from a 5' reach into a square that is heavily obscured (providing total cover) the op attack would go off before the creature enters that square and gains the benefit of heavy obscurement if only because that square is too far for the creature executing the op attack to reach ... so the op attack has to be made against the square the target is exiting. However, that is a ruling and not explicitly stated in the rules. I just assume that an op attack must be made within the reach of the creature making the op attack so cover provided by other squares as a another creature moves out of that reach can't be relevant.
Note that moving within reach does not cause an op attack and if a creature moves into a darkness or fog cloud without moving out of a creatures reach then the creature that entered the heavy obscurement CAN move away, out of reach, without triggering an opportunity attack because they can no longer be seen (assuming that the creature doesn't have devils sight or blindsight or something else that would allow them to see through the heavily obscured region). Moving into heavy obscurement or other total cover within the reach of an opponent does not trigger an opportunity attack.
P.S. However, this could still be ambiguous depending on whether a DM wants to define "reach" as the distance an attack can actually be made .. i.e. if a creature is moving into total cover that provides a barrier to physical attacks, then a DM could rule that the target is leaving the creatures reach because the creature could not attack the target in its new location. Reach isn't defined except as a distance or range and a DM could extend this definition to include the ability to actually execute an attack against a specific location but it is not stated in the rules that reach has any implication about actually being able to make an attack against a specific location within the reach of their weapon ... so that would likely also fall under rulings and not rules.
Just because you can attack at 10ft with a polearm doesn't mean that an enemy with 5ft reach won't get right in your face, you would still need to Disengage. The rest of your argument is just picking a side when it comes to a situation that is really unnecessary to create. You don' want a PAM/Sentinel AoO combo all the time? Cast spells or shoot at them, send a couple melee instead of one. I think almost every player would find less to complain about with these tactics than a DM blatantly looking for ways to nullify the heavy character investment into their feats.
I'm not talking about the times that a creature gets right in their face. That's the same for either the reach weapon and the non-reach weapon. What I'm saying is that if you move into position, stay 10 ft away from the target and attack because you can with a reach weapon, and then move away, you don't need to disengage and you won't provoke opportunity attacks. If you're wielding any other weapon, you can't do that without dipping into rogue or monk for the bonus action disengage, or having Swashbuckler 3 or the Mobile feat. And you're right, I could decide to nullify PAM/GWM (I actually never mentioned Sentinel. The only way that you could have got sentinel is if you focused on the 0 speed at the end of Hold the Line. That wasn't the part that I was talking about. I was talking about the part where they creatures trigger opportunity attacks by moving within reach, which is the part that was being discussed in the thread) by keeping all of the enemy away from the Character using it. I could ensure that all of the enemies have a way to cripple the character so that it can't do anything or worse, that I can turn it and use it against the party. Sounds fun for the player that took all that time and heavy investment into their feats to not get to use them ever. It also sounds fun for the Cavalier that chose the subclass because they wanted those abilities to work in melee to have the entire group designed to stay away have to chase after the rest just to get in range to use any abilities while the players that were lucky enough to have chosen ranged characters are having a blast blasting. I think that's a situation that doesn't need to be created.
As for a DM blatantly looking for ways to nullify the heavy character investment in feats, how would allowing an edge case scenario nullify the feats? Because you didn't get to take 1 OA (that didn't exist and only exists if I as the DM allow it anyway, since I'm the one that makes the enemy characters move to provoke OAs) because there is a weakness to the way that your character is designed? Or are you saying that I should not populate the map with anything that might allow a creature to leave your reach under full cover so that you don't have to worry about positioning?
I'm not looking to nullify anything. If I don't want to deal with GWM, PAM, Lucky, Sentinel, or whatever, it just doesn't make it into the game. Optional Rules and all. I'm finishing up a campaign with no multiclassing and no feats right now. It's been great. I don't DM in an adversarial fashion. Just because I look at a scenario and rule that it doesn't favor your character, it doesn't mean I'm always going to use that tactic and it doesn't mean that I'm trying to take away your fun. I rarely do things that are outside of what the rules say because I like that structure. This is not an area where I would do something that would be outside the rules because it's not that important for me that I "hose" you. My main concern here is that what you are suggesting is something that plays unfairly for the other characters and isn't in the rules.
If you are in an empty field, every square that you can attack is your reach. If you turn that into an overlay like you might for Warhammer or for AoE spells and place that on the grid, then anywhere on flat ground within that is your reach. If there is a 5 ft incline or decline, I'd be willing to grant you an attack there if you had a reach weapon, but I wouldn't a 5 ft reach player without using a ranged option. If there is a pillar or some other form of total cover, you are aren't going to get to make the attack and if your reach includes the square behind that pillar, you aren't going to get an AO if a creature moves behind it because that creature is still in your reach. If you don't want that hole in your OA defenses, take a spear or a quarterstaff. You can wield either with two hands to lose 1 point of average damage. You'll be able to make the OA attacks that you want. It won't interfere with your taking sentinel and PAM, but it won't let you take GWM. If you want GWM and to make those OA attacks, you won't get to benefit from PAM. If you want to be able to benefit from GWM and PAM, then you have to worry about your positioning more so that characters can't leave your reach in a square that you can't target.
Sorry, insurmountable wall of text. PAM let's you use a reaction against 1 opponent each round. I'm afraid I don't see what the big deal is. It's not like you can stop every enemy from getting to you unles you send only one per round, LOL.
Hold the Line is just the warm up. When you have Vigilant Defender and Hold the Line, you will make PAM users very sad.
Why would vigilant defender and Hold the Line make PAM users very sad? If the PAM user has both, they will have ample opportunities to OA nearly to their hearts content. They'll have a feel for how I adjudicate and position accordingly. I'll know that they have fun doing OAs, so I'll send ample opportunities for them to utilize those OAs. Meanwhile, there will be intelligent enemies that realize that everything that comes in a certain way gets popped in the face and decides to change their tactics while continuing to send fodder to busy the PAM player.
If the PAM player isn't the Cavalier, they should be happy that the Cavalier is having fun doing something that is close to what they like to do. Taking position in a way to compliment the Cavalier while still getting a lot of opportunities for OAs while avoiding positioning that isn't as favorable for them and being able to use a bonus attack that they probably don't have access to otherwise (GWM crit and kill bonus action likely aside). Having a few intelligent enemies that either have a disengage or other means to prevent the OAs or using terrain effectively merely keeps everything from being the equivalent of putting a rubber band around the controller and letting the game play itself.
Again, I'm don't try to use the rules to get gotcha moments on my players, I use them to help tell fun stories that have some diversity in action.
Forget about PAM. Stick to plain opportunity attacks.
Edit: I suppose the argument ends up the same; what actually is Reach? I won't accept "a radius around a character" unless you actually can find a line in the rules that says "Reach is a radius around the character." emphasis period.
That's fine. I won't accept that reach isn't a radius around a character unless you show me where it says otherwise.
Reach from the weapons and armor section. PHB chap 5, pg 147
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.
Melee Attacks (from PHB ch 9, making an attack, pg 195, just before Opportunity Attacks)
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack. 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.
Those are your rules. Neither statement is there. Impasse. Tie goes to the DM, as usual. Question though? If your reach is zero when you're next to a wall, and Reach adds 5 to it, does that mean that your reach was actually -5 to get to zero? Or is it simply that your reach extends as it always does, you simply can't target the area within the wall because of cover?
Total Cover
A target with total cover can't be targeted directly by an attack or a spell, although some spells can reach such a target by including it in an area of effect. A target has total cover if it is completely concealed by an obstacle.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/07/if-a-monster-has-2-different-reaches-when-does-it-get-opportunity-attacks/
If you want to make an OA against the creature leaving your targetable area, make an unarmed strike.
From the Sage Advice Compendium (found in Sources on here)
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks? An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach. If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet — beyond your 10-foot reach — the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
While it doesn't apply much, there are some creatures that have 0 ft reach, such as the swarm of rats. If said swarm of rats were able to use a reach weapon (nevermind the sense in it), that would give them 5 ft reach. Still, they couldn't reach through the wall... which has been belabored enough. Some say full cover limits reach, not because full cover says so, but because reach doesn't say what it really is.
So rules don't tell a GM which way to rule, that's fine, there are plenty of cases like it.
I'd do a brief summary of points for going either way as impartially as possible, to help GMs make a decision. In this thread, it would be regarding opportunity attacks, but since it's so closely tied to PAM... that probably should be included since the one ruling would affect both. Unfortunately ... I have other things to see to at the moment...
My main goal with these discussions is to provide a reasonable foundation for DMs to decide what side that they fall on. I'll DM the way that I think it should go, but I'll rarely argue with the DM on a call that they make. If it's something that sounds like they might be rusty on, I'll bring it up in session, but I'm trying not to do that as much. I'd prefer it be discussed out of session as a DM so I try to watch my tongue on it.
I don't think that I'd have a problem with your presentation of reach generally as a DM, but it does get close to stepping on toes for certain builds and I try not to do that. I have noticed that the majority of these types of discussions usually involve something optional like feats or multiclassing. There's so little definition in those areas that the best you'll get for a definitive answer is what is presented on these forums. Sometimes you get a good feel for one side or another, sometimes it's still as muddy as before.
My interpretation of ADDING 5 FEET TO YOUR REACH does not imply that your reach is 10 feet. It is now 5 OR 10 feet. Giant have a reach of 10 feet, they can hit you at 5 feet if they choose. Many other creatures follow this design.
I'm not saying that you can't attack normally at 5 ft.
When you are talking OAs, it's a different deal.
"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."
I can see using the exception of moving behind total cover for taking a 5 ft OA with a reach weapon. There is enough support for the normal reach for OAs being at 10 ft at least more most PCs. Exceptions like the burrowing creatures are like the pillar example and subject to interpretation. There is even support through JCs tweets that you could make a 5 ft OA with an unarmed strike if you want to take that OA.
As always, the DM has final say and we're clearly talking past each other, so I'll wish you a good day.
This seems similar to an incorporeal creature sinking into the floor. By the time they are out of melee range, they have total cover.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
This discussion is not about whether you can attack within your reach. No one is going to argue that. The question is what it means to enter your reach. If I start my turn 5 feet away from your giant and move adjacent, he can't make an OA because I did not enter his reach.
Now what if that square I started in was totally obscured and I was suddenly visible to the giant when I moved up? That's the argument and we've reached an impasse there.
Also, I'm sorry for whatever DM hurt you, but we're not all evil metagamers hell bent on confounding all player options. When I (very occasionally) circumvent the PAM/Sentinel guy in my group it's done in order to challenge the party and it's generally done in a situation where it makes sense that the party tactics are known and a smart enemy would try to counter them. I don't want to defeat the characters and frustrate the players - I'm just trying to keep things interesting and avoid every combat being exactly the same. The guy still generally gets to use his reaction for something else and gets his 3 other attacks a round so I think he's ok.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
(malevolent cackle)
And not all evil GMs are metagamers. I'll let you have whatever toys you want... because I have all the toys.
I mean, we're also here to have fun, we might just enjoy playing the evil even while the good guys (??!??) win.
Oh, it's been said before: opportunity attacks happen before they leave reach. Regardless of how one interprets reach.
Where do you get the ruling that burrowing creatures do not provoke an opportunity attack?