should Sage-advice change the Errata for opportunity attack and reach weapons/attacks if so check yes
if you think the Errata needs no changes check no
I am not saying I am correct or anything just trying to get them to clarify this a lot better because a lot of DM's and servers and such are still struggling with its interpretations as RAW. to some its clear to others it is muddy.
See2nd from bottom link in post for weapons and OA's errata for reach weapons.
See bottom link for an extensive covering of stealth and invisibility and such... Very informative yet doesnt address OA directly and I of course disagree based on my writings in why and how etc...And they should change it to percieve in there to count smell as well.
"remember you only get 1 reaction per round."
Opportunity attack PHB p. 195 paragraph 2:
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 interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.
here is my house rule or reword idea / change.
Opportunity attack PHB p. 195 paragraph 2 change suggestion: ("in quotes is unchanged", for wording replaced *your* with *that*) just for clarity.
Whenever a creature you are aware of, moves out of a reach you (including your unarmed or natural attacks), or a weapon you are wielding could melee attack from, you May use your reaction to make one melee attack against that creature. "The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves *that* reach."
clarifications if needed?:
If the creature moves but does not change reaches they provoke no OA unless an ability overrides this rule (cavalier class features and pole arm master as examples). (unless specified you may not replaces this type of attack with any other attack requiring the use of the attack action.) These may not be necessary but help clarify what I am suggesting.
Why did I do this or why do I see it as a problem:
why must you physically see your target? so many creatures have other means of sight and lets not forget blindsight and tremor sense as well as smell. without this change any invisible creature never provokes an OA... yet the only penalty should be disadvantage which is already imposed.
Why must they be hostile towards you??? if you are unsure about the person your talking to and you have your weapons raised and they have their hands up. you feel threatened, they mean no hostility but you don't know that so the DM has you in combat rounds. if they go to back out of your reach why can you not then decide to strike?
why is a dragon with a 15' reach tail attack not able to OA with any of its other melee attack before hand and only when something leaves from its maximum attacks reach 15 to 20'
implementing this change (wording may be reworded of course but spirit and intent should remain) should not interfere with any class ability feature and such. point of note. if a creature has a reach of 15 and you move into its 15 reach and stay AT that exact reach, not changing to 10 or 15, you would provoke no OA as written and that is the intent. however from 10' to 15' or into 5' would trigger the OA should you chose to use your reaction for the round.
You don’t. If you have blindsight or truesight or something similar, you count as being able to see out to the relevant range.
“Why must they be hostile towards you???”
Because AoOs are reflexive, and you’re not on guard toward people who aren’t hostile to you. If you want to play a hyper-paranoid character who treats everyone as hostile, that’s up to your DM to allow or not.
”why is a dragon with a 15' reach tail attack not able to OA with any of its other melee attack before hand and only when something leaves from its maximum attacks reach 15 to 20'”
A dragon, like any other creature, is able to make an AoO when a creature leaves any of its reaches, not just the greatest one.
Your house rule is unnecessary, because the actual rules already do what it purports to do.
but if you've played games where an NPC could be an ally or an enemy all with a roll of the die or on a charisma check etc... or a players initial response is to kill the new monster that appears before it can thank the adventures form just rescuing it from its captors etc... these things do occur and honesty it just depends on where you as the DM allow combat to occur and when the player can use its OA etc...
i just wanted to cover the whole question of what's hostile. if your racist towards orcs in your mind is every orc near you hostile in your opinion. must a creature act aggressively towards you or your party before it is deemed hostile. spiders fleeing from you walking through their woods are not hostile. is a charmed monster to be frightened still hostile? some of that may be answered already but i thought id errata it lol just in case
Your poll is confusing. You ask if you like something or should it change then have the poll as a yes or no question.
You have basically asked two separate questions (Do you like the way it is? Do you think it should change?) Then asked a single yes or no question as a response.
I for one don't have a problem with the way it is worded and don't think it should change, but I would consider it far from perfect.
i believe a comma would help after or before or to clearly say... should it change.... there was supposed to be a 3rd option of don't know don't care or other but i failed to fix it before submitting this post for the 3rd time...
so yes it should change or no its perfect and needs no further errata or explanations...
whenever a creature you are aware of, moves out of a reach you or a weapon you are wielding (including your unarmed or natural attacks) could melee attack from, you May use your reaction to make one melee attack against that creature... "The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach." If the creature moves but does not change reaches they provoke no OA unless an ability overrides this rule (cavalier class features and pole arm master as examples). (unless specified you may not replaces this type of attack with any other attack requiring the use of the attack action.) may not be necessary
Firstly, some words are missing and punctuation is wrong, so your version is not better for that reason.
The last sentence "If the creature moves but does not change reaches..." is not required, since you've already specified under what conditions the opportunity attack DOES occur in the first sentence.
Ok so due to Covid i started using DnD online resources etc... IE discord servers and such. as such i have now come across many servers and DM who make a wide array of rulings such as:
once a creature is inside your reach no matter how great it can only be OA'd if it leaves your Maximum reach. so a dagger whip characters only get to OA when a creature leaves from 10 to 15'. outside the whip's reach. but not if it moves from 5' to 10'.
some rule that the dagger can OA at 5' to 10' but not the whip as it can only OA at 10 to 15'
some say you get unarmed attacks even while wielding 2 handed weapons to use at OA's at 5' or 10' if your reach is sufficient.
the variations continue... please suggest punctuation changes or rewording though, I'd also like you interpretation. i figure the only way to get a response from sage advice is to generate a community response.
The rule for opportunity attack is "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It doesn't make mention of any weapon, just "your reach", so if you are wielding two weapons with different reach, then you only get the OA when the creature moves outside the range of the longer reach.
The rules for unarmed strikes are: "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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes." So whilst you could make an OA with an unarmed strike, e.g. by kicking, it generally would cause less damage than using a weapon. I certainly wouldn't allow a punch if both hands are occupied with weapons and/or shields.
The "Blind Fighting" fighting style that a Fighter or Paladin can learn says "You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you." The wording is providing a method of effectively seeing, so it would apply for the standard wording of OA.
The rule for opportunity attack is "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It doesn't make mention of any weapon, just "your reach", so if you are wielding two weapons with different reach, then you only get the OA when the creature moves outside the range of the longer reach.
This is incorrect. Let's examine the text of the reach property: "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." If I'm dual-wielding a dagger and a whip, my reach is only considered to be 10 feet if I'm making an attack of opportunity with the whip. My reach is still 5 feet if the AoO is being made with the dagger.
The rule for opportunity attack is "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It doesn't make mention of any weapon, just "your reach", so if you are wielding two weapons with different reach, then you only get the OA when the creature moves outside the range of the longer reach.
This is incorrect. Let's examine the text of the reach property: "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." If I'm dual-wielding a dagger and a whip, my reach is only considered to be 10 feet if I'm making an attack of opportunity with the whip. My reach is still 5 feet if the AoO is being made with the dagger.
You can interpret the rules that way if you like.
However, the OA rules don't mention any weapons they only mention "your reach". So, if you are wielding a whip then your reach for OA will be 10 feet since that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA.
However, the OA rules don't mention any weapons they only mention "your reach". So, if you are wielding a whip then your reach for OA will be 10 feet since that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA.
I mean, by RAW they are exactly correct. There's not any irregular interpretation here. "Your reach" is determined by your race, typically (so it is 5ft for just about everyone). That is always the case, even if you are wielding a glaive. "Your reach" is only increased "when you attack with [a reach weapon]" or "when determining your reach for opportunity attack with [a reach weapon]".
Your reach is static and does not change, except for the moment you are attacking/OAing with a reach weapon.
Therefore if you have a whip and a dagger, you can OA with the dagger when something moves from 5 to 10 feet away. Because "your reach" when your enemy moves from 5-10 feet is still only 5 feet, because you are not currently attacking/OAing with the whip.
The reason you can't do OA with dagger then OA attack with whip when an opponent moves from 5 feet to 15 feet away is because you only get the one reaction.
At your own table, feel free to always use the longest reach weapon. I wouldn't take issue playing at any game that used that ruling.
(There's the issue of the dragon's tail, etc, because that is a natural weapon that does not have the Reach property, so it is unclear if a dragon can OA on any movement from 5-20 feet away ... their base "reach" is never specified. Additionally, an item like Eldritch Claw Tattoo opens a new can of worms. There's places where OA reach is unclear, but this isn't one of them by RAW.)
The rule for opportunity attack is "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It doesn't make mention of any weapon, just "your reach", so if you are wielding two weapons with different reach, then you only get the OA when the creature moves outside the range of the longer reach.
This is incorrect. Let's examine the text of the reach property: "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." If I'm dual-wielding a dagger and a whip, my reach is only considered to be 10 feet if I'm making an attack of opportunity with the whip. My reach is still 5 feet if the AoO is being made with the dagger.
You can interpret the rules that way if you like.
However, the OA rules don't mention any weapons they only mention "your reach". So, if you are wielding a whip then your reach for OA will be 10 feet since that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA.
Again, it's the Reach property you need to look at, which are more specific than the general AoO rules. You've actually already said the part that contradicts your conclusion. You're just not paying enough attention to what you're saying: "that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA." It only grants extra reach when you make an attack with it, and for the purposes of AoOs made with it. If those two conditions aren't satisfied, for example, if you're making an AoO with a different weapon, it does not extend your reach, which remains 5 feet. That's not "interpretation." That is straight-up what the Reach property says. You can ignore those rules if you like, but that reaches beyond the realm of "rules and game mechanics" and heads into "homebrew" territory.
To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.
And if we read melee attack it states
... "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. ...
if we change just 5-foot to 10-foot then the "within 10 feet" would apply meaning if you had a 10' and a 5' reach attacks, then when you move form 5' to 10' you could attack them with the 10' reaching attack as it is within the reach. the second sentence seems to imply that greater reaches still allow attacking within their reach not just at the additional reach it has.
Therefore you should not "need" a 2nd weapon to give you another attack at a different reach especially since on your actual turn you can use the attack action to make the same melee attack within 5' and it has a reach of 10'. So unless you would have a use of some kind or like a differing damage type. but you could if you wanted and there's still unarmed and natural attacks.
The rule for opportunity attack is "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It doesn't make mention of any weapon, just "your reach", so if you are wielding two weapons with different reach, then you only get the OA when the creature moves outside the range of the longer reach.
This is incorrect. Let's examine the text of the reach property: "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." If I'm dual-wielding a dagger and a whip, my reach is only considered to be 10 feet if I'm making an attack of opportunity with the whip. My reach is still 5 feet if the AoO is being made with the dagger.
You can interpret the rules that way if you like.
However, the OA rules don't mention any weapons they only mention "your reach". So, if you are wielding a whip then your reach for OA will be 10 feet since that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA.
Again, it's the Reach property you need to look at, which are more specific than the general AoO rules. You've actually already said the part that contradicts your conclusion. You're just not paying enough attention to what you're saying: "that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA." It only grants extra reach when you make an attack with it, and for the purposes of AoOs made with it. If those two conditions aren't satisfied, for example, if you're making an AoO with a different weapon, it does not extend your reach, which remains 5 feet. That's not "interpretation." That is straight-up what the Reach property says. You can ignore those rules if you like, but that reaches beyond the realm of "rules and game mechanics" and heads into "homebrew" territory.
So using a weapon with the reach property gives you the potential to have a reach of 10 ft.
So, either go with NVCoach's assertion that reach is ALWAYS 5 ft for a normal human, so OA only works when moving further than 5 ft away.
Or, go with the potential reach based on the weapon's being wielded, so if you are wielding a reach weapon then you only OA when moving further than 10 ft away.
I have to agree with Saga et al on this, RAW. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you only gain the extra range when making an attack or OA with that weapon. If you were dual wielding a rreach and non-reach weapon, you would have 2 reaches, and could use your reaction to make an OA if an enemy left either, using the weapon with that range. I think, technically, you could even do so with a 2-handed reach weapon, but use an unarmed strike if they left the non-reach range.
Of course, you can only make one OA per round, due to it using your reaction, so you couldn't OA twice if an enemy left both.
The other aspect of the homebrew rule above is also already taken care of for blindsight etc.
So, for me, that homebrew rule does nothing extra. On top of that, the wording of it is really confusing (particularly with the punctuation as it is...).
similar discussion, I really am trying to generate some community response to get this addressed because as the few of us can see, RAW is greeting different interpretations, RAI is debatable even more so. so please lets get a community response, and get jeremy crawford or some one else to really address by reading RAW throughout the chapters and references to see the problems we are having.
several spells say "see" in their description, yet some spells say target of "sight" and of course their is line of sight. so blinded and tremor sense having players or blind sense, could never cast animal friendship???? as they can not "see" the animal... really?
similar discussion, I really am trying to generate some community response to get this addressed because as the few of us can see, RAW is greeting different interpretations, RAI is debatable even more so. so please lets get a community response, and get jeremy crawford or some one else to really address by reading RAW throughout the chapters and references to see the problems we are having.
several spells say "see" in their description, yet some spells say target of "sight" and of course their is line of sight. so blinded and tremor sense having players or blind sense, could never cast animal friendship???? as they can not "see" the animal... really?
The Poll is this:
should Sage-advice change the Errata for opportunity attack and reach weapons/attacks if so check yes
if you think the Errata needs no changes check no
I am not saying I am correct or anything just trying to get them to clarify this a lot better because a lot of DM's and servers and such are still struggling with its interpretations as RAW. to some its clear to others it is muddy.
See2nd from bottom link in post for weapons and OA's errata for reach weapons.
See bottom link for an extensive covering of stealth and invisibility and such... Very informative yet doesnt address OA directly and I of course disagree based on my writings in why and how etc...And they should change it to percieve in there to count smell as well.
"remember you only get 1 reaction per round."
Opportunity attack PHB p. 195 paragraph 2:
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 interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.
here is my house rule or reword idea / change.
Opportunity attack PHB p. 195 paragraph 2 change suggestion: ("in quotes is unchanged", for wording replaced *your* with *that*) just for clarity.
Whenever a creature you are aware of, moves out of a reach you (including your unarmed or natural attacks), or a weapon you are wielding could melee attack from, you May use your reaction to make one melee attack against that creature. "The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves *that* reach."
clarifications if needed?:
If the creature moves but does not change reaches they provoke no OA unless an ability overrides this rule (cavalier class features and pole arm master as examples). (unless specified you may not replaces this type of attack with any other attack requiring the use of the attack action.) These may not be necessary but help clarify what I am suggesting.
Why did I do this or why do I see it as a problem:
why must you physically see your target? so many creatures have other means of sight and lets not forget blindsight and tremor sense as well as smell. without this change any invisible creature never provokes an OA... yet the only penalty should be disadvantage which is already imposed.
Why must they be hostile towards you??? if you are unsure about the person your talking to and you have your weapons raised and they have their hands up. you feel threatened, they mean no hostility but you don't know that so the DM has you in combat rounds. if they go to back out of your reach why can you not then decide to strike?
why is a dragon with a 15' reach tail attack not able to OA with any of its other melee attack before hand and only when something leaves from its maximum attacks reach 15 to 20'
implementing this change (wording may be reworded of course but spirit and intent should remain) should not interfere with any class ability feature and such. point of note. if a creature has a reach of 15 and you move into its 15 reach and stay AT that exact reach, not changing to 10 or 15, you would provoke no OA as written and that is the intent. however from 10' to 15' or into 5' would trigger the OA should you chose to use your reaction for the round.
NEWLY DISCOVERED ERRATA SINCE THREAD CREATED:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/07/if-a-monster-has-2-different-reaches-when-does-it-get-opportunity-attacks/)
(https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/james-haeck-dd-writing)
Covers weapons and OA's errata for reach weapons.
“why must you physically see your target?”
You don’t. If you have blindsight or truesight or something similar, you count as being able to see out to the relevant range.
“Why must they be hostile towards you???”
Because AoOs are reflexive, and you’re not on guard toward people who aren’t hostile to you. If you want to play a hyper-paranoid character who treats everyone as hostile, that’s up to your DM to allow or not.
”why is a dragon with a 15' reach tail attack not able to OA with any of its other melee attack before hand and only when something leaves from its maximum attacks reach 15 to 20'”
A dragon, like any other creature, is able to make an AoO when a creature leaves any of its reaches, not just the greatest one.
Your house rule is unnecessary, because the actual rules already do what it purports to do.
please review https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf page 19 regarding opportunity attacks.
I whole heartedly agree with you.
but if you've played games where an NPC could be an ally or an enemy all with a roll of the die or on a charisma check etc... or a players initial response is to kill the new monster that appears before it can thank the adventures form just rescuing it from its captors etc... these things do occur and honesty it just depends on where you as the DM allow combat to occur and when the player can use its OA etc...
i just wanted to cover the whole question of what's hostile. if your racist towards orcs in your mind is every orc near you hostile in your opinion. must a creature act aggressively towards you or your party before it is deemed hostile. spiders fleeing from you walking through their woods are not hostile. is a charmed monster to be frightened still hostile? some of that may be answered already but i thought id errata it lol just in case
Your poll is confusing. You ask if you like something or should it change then have the poll as a yes or no question.
You have basically asked two separate questions (Do you like the way it is? Do you think it should change?) Then asked a single yes or no question as a response.
I for one don't have a problem with the way it is worded and don't think it should change, but I would consider it far from perfect.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
i believe a comma would help after or before or to clearly say... should it change.... there was supposed to be a 3rd option of don't know don't care or other but i failed to fix it before submitting this post for the 3rd time...
so yes it should change
or no its perfect and needs no further errata or explanations...
Firstly, some words are missing and punctuation is wrong, so your version is not better for that reason.
The last sentence "If the creature moves but does not change reaches..." is not required, since you've already specified under what conditions the opportunity attack DOES occur in the first sentence.
Ok so due to Covid i started using DnD online resources etc... IE discord servers and such. as such i have now come across many servers and DM who make a wide array of rulings such as:
once a creature is inside your reach no matter how great it can only be OA'd if it leaves your Maximum reach. so a dagger whip characters only get to OA when a creature leaves from 10 to 15'. outside the whip's reach. but not if it moves from 5' to 10'.
some rule that the dagger can OA at 5' to 10' but not the whip as it can only OA at 10 to 15'
some say you get unarmed attacks even while wielding 2 handed weapons to use at OA's at 5' or 10' if your reach is sufficient.
the variations continue... please suggest punctuation changes or rewording though, I'd also like you interpretation. i figure the only way to get a response from sage advice is to generate a community response.
The rule for opportunity attack is "You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach." It doesn't make mention of any weapon, just "your reach", so if you are wielding two weapons with different reach, then you only get the OA when the creature moves outside the range of the longer reach.
The rules for unarmed strikes are: "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). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes." So whilst you could make an OA with an unarmed strike, e.g. by kicking, it generally would cause less damage than using a weapon. I certainly wouldn't allow a punch if both hands are occupied with weapons and/or shields.
The "Blind Fighting" fighting style that a Fighter or Paladin can learn says "You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if you’re blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range, unless the creature successfully hides from you." The wording is providing a method of effectively seeing, so it would apply for the standard wording of OA.
This is incorrect. Let's examine the text of the reach property: "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." If I'm dual-wielding a dagger and a whip, my reach is only considered to be 10 feet if I'm making an attack of opportunity with the whip. My reach is still 5 feet if the AoO is being made with the dagger.
You can interpret the rules that way if you like.
However, the OA rules don't mention any weapons they only mention "your reach". So, if you are wielding a whip then your reach for OA will be 10 feet since that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA.
I mean, by RAW they are exactly correct. There's not any irregular interpretation here. "Your reach" is determined by your race, typically (so it is 5ft for just about everyone). That is always the case, even if you are wielding a glaive. "Your reach" is only increased "when you attack with [a reach weapon]" or "when determining your reach for opportunity attack with [a reach weapon]".
Your reach is static and does not change, except for the moment you are attacking/OAing with a reach weapon.
Therefore if you have a whip and a dagger, you can OA with the dagger when something moves from 5 to 10 feet away. Because "your reach" when your enemy moves from 5-10 feet is still only 5 feet, because you are not currently attacking/OAing with the whip.
The reason you can't do OA with dagger then OA attack with whip when an opponent moves from 5 feet to 15 feet away is because you only get the one reaction.
At your own table, feel free to always use the longest reach weapon. I wouldn't take issue playing at any game that used that ruling.
(There's the issue of the dragon's tail, etc, because that is a natural weapon that does not have the Reach property, so it is unclear if a dragon can OA on any movement from 5-20 feet away ... their base "reach" is never specified. Additionally, an item like Eldritch Claw Tattoo opens a new can of worms. There's places where OA reach is unclear, but this isn't one of them by RAW.)
I’m with Saga on multiple reaches being RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Again, it's the Reach property you need to look at, which are more specific than the general AoO rules. You've actually already said the part that contradicts your conclusion. You're just not paying enough attention to what you're saying: "that weapon grants you that extra reach if you were to use it for an OA." It only grants extra reach when you make an attack with it, and for the purposes of AoOs made with it. If those two conditions aren't satisfied, for example, if you're making an AoO with a different weapon, it does not extend your reach, which remains 5 feet. That's not "interpretation." That is straight-up what the Reach property says. You can ignore those rules if you like, but that reaches beyond the realm of "rules and game mechanics" and heads into "homebrew" territory.
i just want to add that OA states
To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack interrupts the provoking creature’s movement, occurring right before the creature leaves your reach.
And if we read melee attack it states
... "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. ...
if we change just 5-foot to 10-foot then the "within 10 feet" would apply meaning if you had a 10' and a 5' reach attacks, then when you move form 5' to 10' you could attack them with the 10' reaching attack as it is within the reach. the second sentence seems to imply that greater reaches still allow attacking within their reach not just at the additional reach it has.
Therefore you should not "need" a 2nd weapon to give you another attack at a different reach especially since on your actual turn you can use the attack action to make the same melee attack within 5' and it has a reach of 10'. So unless you would have a use of some kind or like a differing damage type. but you could if you wanted and there's still unarmed and natural attacks.
So using a weapon with the reach property gives you the potential to have a reach of 10 ft.
So, either go with NVCoach's assertion that reach is ALWAYS 5 ft for a normal human, so OA only works when moving further than 5 ft away.Or, go with the potential reach based on the weapon's being wielded, so if you are wielding a reach weapon then you only OA when moving further than 10 ft away.
I have to agree with Saga et al on this, RAW. If you are wielding a reach weapon, you only gain the extra range when making an attack or OA with that weapon. If you were dual wielding a rreach and non-reach weapon, you would have 2 reaches, and could use your reaction to make an OA if an enemy left either, using the weapon with that range. I think, technically, you could even do so with a 2-handed reach weapon, but use an unarmed strike if they left the non-reach range.
Of course, you can only make one OA per round, due to it using your reaction, so you couldn't OA twice if an enemy left both.
The other aspect of the homebrew rule above is also already taken care of for blindsight etc.
So, for me, that homebrew rule does nothing extra. On top of that, the wording of it is really confusing (particularly with the punctuation as it is...).
I most definitely did not say this. Please do not put words in my mouth.
You're right. I don't know what I read first time. I apologise.
similar discussion, I really am trying to generate some community response to get this addressed because as the few of us can see, RAW is greeting different interpretations, RAI is debatable even more so. so please lets get a community response, and get jeremy crawford or some one else to really address by reading RAW throughout the chapters and references to see the problems we are having.
several spells say "see" in their description, yet some spells say target of "sight" and of course their is line of sight. so blinded and tremor sense having players or blind sense, could never cast animal friendship???? as they can not "see" the animal... really?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/li5nbx/an_alternative_interpretation_of_sageadvices_and/
Discussions on reddit should remain on reddit :-)