The ranged attack rolls get disadvantage in melee. That's mean that first of all to get disadvantage It has to be an attack not just a spell, and also It has to be ranged. But here is the question. What define "ranged" a spell? Things like burning hands for example has an aoe farther then 5 feet but still not so much..because the max range is 15 feet. So that's mean that to properly cast it you should cast it exactly between 5 and 15 feet to avoid the disadvantage? It seem to be pretty silly to me..And what about things on reaction like hellish rebuke? You can use It if someone attack you, that's thing that most likely can happen in melee range. Do you suffer disadvantage here to? Again, It sound very silly.
Also another thing to clarify: The caster isn't subject to an opportunity attack when he cast a spell in melee range right? Not in 5e if i understand correctly
First, it isn't that ranged attack have disadvantage on target enemy within 5 feet, ranged attacks have disadvantage if any enemy is within 5 feet.
Second, ranged attack has a very specific rules definition, it is not just damage dealt at range. Save spells like burning hands and hellish rebuke are not attacks. Attacks roll a d20 against AC to hit.
Second, ranged attack has a very specific rules definition, it is not just damage dealt at range. Save spells like burning hands and hellish rebuke are not attacks. Attacks roll a d20 against AC to hit.
Ok thank you. Damn, i've been so stupid, how can there be a disadvantage without a hit roll 😅. I'm sorry, so dumb.. Now this is more clear but the question remain, what define an attack spell "ranged" can you make some example pls? There Is a list or something to look for in the description of a spell to understand that?
Opportunity attacks are only generated if a creature moves of its own accord beyond the melee attack range of another creature. Opportunity attacks are not triggered by spellcasting.
Ranged spell attacks are defined as spells that tell you to “make a ranged spell attack” in their description. fire bolt is an example
Ranged spell attacks are defined as spells that tell you to “make a ranged spell attack” in their description. fire bolt is an example
This.
And what about opportunity attacks? They don't really pertain to the subject since they must be melee weapon attacks (unless you have war caster in which case it follows the same rules of casting a spell we already covered).
Ranged spell attacks are defined as spells that tell you to “make a ranged spell attack” in their description. fire bolt is an example
This.
And what about opportunity attacks? They don't really pertain to the subject since they must be melee weapon attacks (unless you have war caster in which case it follows the same rules of casting a spell we already covered).
I think he may be asking about an older mechanic where spellcasting could trigger opportunity attacks...I know it’s present in pathfinder/starfinder and may have been in older D&D editions too
Ranged spell attacks are defined as spells that tell you to “make a ranged spell attack” in their description. fire bolt is an example
This.
And what about opportunity attacks? They don't really pertain to the subject since they must be melee weapon attacks (unless you have war caster in which case it follows the same rules of casting a spell we already covered).
I think he may be asking about an older mechanic where spellcasting could trigger opportunity attacks...I know it’s present in pathfinder/starfinder and may have been in older D&D editions too
Eldritch blast, which bolt. You have to roll to hit and there are no saves.
Yes.
And?
This 2+ year old thread was about how ranged attacks like these have disadvantage if an enemy is within 5 feet and how it doesn't apply to spells that require saves without attacking like not these. Do you have something relevant to add or a relevant question?
Just take Crosdbow expert, as it clearly states: "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls." RAW.
This has to be one of the most ignored rules in the game.
1. The “ranged attacks in melee are harder” rule might make some sense for bows, but for firearms it’s absurd. Pistols don’t become less accurate the closer you are—if anything, the opposite is true. There’s no real-world logic where a gun has a “too close to hit” problem. The rule doesn’t just strain realism; it actively contradicts how firearms work.
2. In practice, most DMs ignore this rule anyway. Ironically, the only feat that grants firearm proficiency also removes the melee disadvantage, which feels like a tacit admission the rule is broken. On top of that, spending a feat just to use firearms is hard to justify. Guns are mechanically simple compared to melee weapons, and the idea that a trained user still has a significant chance to miss at point-blank range (5% always even without disadvantage) already throws realism out the window.
At that point, the rule exists mostly on paper—and everyone plays as if it doesn’t.
In fact it would be realistic to give firearm's a advantage in melee range, this rule would cancel that advantage, and a skilled expert gets the advantage.
1. The “ranged attacks in melee are harder” rule might make some sense for bows, but for firearms it’s absurd. Pistols don’t become less accurate the closer you are—if anything, the opposite is true. There’s no real-world logic where a gun has a “too close to hit” problem. The rule doesn’t just strain realism; it actively contradicts how firearms work.
To some extent you are correct but to some not so much. Using a rifle against someone in melee range isn't all that easy. There is also a balancing issue here and weapons are meant to be good in melee or ranged but not both, those that can do both usually suffers from some drawback (like short range or small damage dice or such).
Ironically, the only feat that grants firearm proficiency also removes the melee disadvantage, which feels like a tacit admission the rule is broken.
Nah that is a flawed reasoning. There are subclasses and such that gives proficiency with firearms, the feat is meant to be a way to upgrade your skill just as there are similar feats that takes away the disadvantage for bow users and for spellcasters. The fact that it also gives proficiency is just so that there is an easy way to add it to a character that doesn't get it from the start.
[...] Ironically, the only feat that grants firearm proficiency also removes the melee disadvantage, which feels like a tacit admission the rule is broken. [...]
Third-party content, but the Firearm Specialist feat also exists and gives you proficiency with firearms without removing the disadvantage on ranged attack rolls.
Ironically, the only feat that grants firearm proficiency also removes the melee disadvantage, which feels like a tacit admission the rule is broken.
Nah that is a flawed reasoning. There are subclasses and such that gives proficiency with firearms, the feat is meant to be a way to upgrade your skill just as there are similar feats that takes away the disadvantage for bow users and for spellcasters. The fact that it also gives proficiency is just so that there is an easy way to add it to a character that doesn't get it from the start.
I do not think it is flawed, i believe the flaw is yours to own. Point blank handgun testing such as shooting into jell show handgun firearms are far more deadly when the target is inches from the muzzle. As i was saying for most other weapons this rule should apply, just not handgun firearms which are designed for close range. Crossbow expert and Gunner remove this disadvantage but I suggest these weapons should have an advantage to offset and improve it for experts. I will be applying it for my games. As for other GM's I play with, it will be a discussion topic regarding logic. I do not foresee an argument due to the weak firearms rules overall for D&D.
Ironically, the only feat that grants firearm proficiency also removes the melee disadvantage, which feels like a tacit admission the rule is broken.
Nah that is a flawed reasoning. There are subclasses and such that gives proficiency with firearms, the feat is meant to be a way to upgrade your skill just as there are similar feats that takes away the disadvantage for bow users and for spellcasters. The fact that it also gives proficiency is just so that there is an easy way to add it to a character that doesn't get it from the start.
I do not think it is flawed, i believe the flaw is yours to own. Point blank handgun testing such as shooting into jell show handgun firearms are far more deadly when the target is inches from the muzzle. As i was saying for most other weapons this rule should apply, just not handgun firearms which are designed for close range. Crossbow expert and Gunner remove this disadvantage but I suggest these weapons should have an advantage to offset and improve it for experts. I will be applying it for my games. As for other GM's I play with, it will be a discussion topic regarding logic. I do not foresee an argument due to the weak firearms rules overall for D&D.
They're asserting your logic is flawed because there's no reason to believe that the Gunner feat has the trait removing the disadvantage is an implication that the rule is broken. This is flawed logic because it's not rational to assert that any game feature that removes a penalty is implying the existence of the penalty is in error. Here are some other more likely possible reasons for the trait on the gunner feat:
It's to make the value proposition of the feat better
It's to give the feat some value for non-firearm users (+1 Dex and ignoring the 5' disadvantage are arguably the two strongest parts of the feat)
It's meant to convey a specific fantasy/narrative of someone being even better with firearms than just having proficiency (note that there are other ways to get firearm proficiencies such as Martial Weapon Training feat or weapon training during downtime)
When firing a firearm at a target from "point blank" range (or at a target while the target's ally is right next to you), the fact that you are close enough so that the enemy might reach out and swat your hand before you pull the trigger some percentage of the time means that your overall accuracy will be worse than if you were positioned 10 or more feet away from all enemies. The rules do a pretty nice job of factoring that in.
Hey, as long as who you're playing with all agree on how to go about it, that's really all that matters. But I do think if something is meant to be used for range, when it's not getting that range it should at least affect the attack in some way.
The ranged attack rolls get disadvantage in melee. That's mean that first of all to get disadvantage It has to be an attack not just a spell, and also It has to be ranged. But here is the question. What define "ranged" a spell? Things like burning hands for example has an aoe farther then 5 feet but still not so much..because the max range is 15 feet. So that's mean that to properly cast it you should cast it exactly between 5 and 15 feet to avoid the disadvantage? It seem to be pretty silly to me..And what about things on reaction like hellish rebuke? You can use It if someone attack you, that's thing that most likely can happen in melee range. Do you suffer disadvantage here to? Again, It sound very silly.
Also another thing to clarify: The caster isn't subject to an opportunity attack when he cast a spell in melee range right? Not in 5e if i understand correctly
First, it isn't that ranged attack have disadvantage on target enemy within 5 feet, ranged attacks have disadvantage if any enemy is within 5 feet.
Second, ranged attack has a very specific rules definition, it is not just damage dealt at range. Save spells like burning hands and hellish rebuke are not attacks. Attacks roll a d20 against AC to hit.
Ok thank you. Damn, i've been so stupid, how can there be a disadvantage without a hit roll 😅. I'm sorry, so dumb.. Now this is more clear but the question remain, what define an attack spell "ranged" can you make some example pls? There Is a list or something to look for in the description of a spell to understand that?
And what about the opportunity Attack?
Opportunity attacks are only generated if a creature moves of its own accord beyond the melee attack range of another creature. Opportunity attacks are not triggered by spellcasting.
Ranged spell attacks are defined as spells that tell you to “make a ranged spell attack” in their description. fire bolt is an example
This.
And what about opportunity attacks? They don't really pertain to the subject since they must be melee weapon attacks (unless you have war caster in which case it follows the same rules of casting a spell we already covered).
I think he may be asking about an older mechanic where spellcasting could trigger opportunity attacks...I know it’s present in pathfinder/starfinder and may have been in older D&D editions too
Exactly, that's what i meant. Thx a lot everybody
There is a feat Mage Slayer, which grants a kind of opportunity attack against a creature that casts a spell.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Eldritch blast, which bolt. You have to roll to hit and there are no saves.
Yes.
And?
This 2+ year old thread was about how ranged attacks like these have disadvantage if an enemy is within 5 feet and how it doesn't apply to spells that require saves without attacking like not these. Do you have something relevant to add or a relevant question?
Just take Crosdbow expert, as it clearly states: "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls." RAW.
This has to be one of the most ignored rules in the game.
1. The “ranged attacks in melee are harder” rule might make some sense for bows, but for firearms it’s absurd. Pistols don’t become less accurate the closer you are—if anything, the opposite is true. There’s no real-world logic where a gun has a “too close to hit” problem. The rule doesn’t just strain realism; it actively contradicts how firearms work.
2. In practice, most DMs ignore this rule anyway. Ironically, the only feat that grants firearm proficiency also removes the melee disadvantage, which feels like a tacit admission the rule is broken. On top of that, spending a feat just to use firearms is hard to justify. Guns are mechanically simple compared to melee weapons, and the idea that a trained user still has a significant chance to miss at point-blank range (5% always even without disadvantage) already throws realism out the window.
At that point, the rule exists mostly on paper—and everyone plays as if it doesn’t.
In fact it would be realistic to give firearm's a advantage in melee range, this rule would cancel that advantage, and a skilled expert gets the advantage.
To some extent you are correct but to some not so much. Using a rifle against someone in melee range isn't all that easy. There is also a balancing issue here and weapons are meant to be good in melee or ranged but not both, those that can do both usually suffers from some drawback (like short range or small damage dice or such).
Really? I can't remember ever meeting a DM that didn't use this rule tbh.
Nah that is a flawed reasoning. There are subclasses and such that gives proficiency with firearms, the feat is meant to be a way to upgrade your skill just as there are similar feats that takes away the disadvantage for bow users and for spellcasters. The fact that it also gives proficiency is just so that there is an easy way to add it to a character that doesn't get it from the start.
I have never played at a table that doesn't apply this rule as written
And even if your hyperbole were true, that's not relevant to the discussion
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Third-party content, but the Firearm Specialist feat also exists and gives you proficiency with firearms without removing the disadvantage on ranged attack rolls.
I do not think it is flawed, i believe the flaw is yours to own. Point blank handgun testing such as shooting into jell show handgun firearms are far more deadly when the target is inches from the muzzle. As i was saying for most other weapons this rule should apply, just not handgun firearms which are designed for close range. Crossbow expert and Gunner remove this disadvantage but I suggest these weapons should have an advantage to offset and improve it for experts. I will be applying it for my games. As for other GM's I play with, it will be a discussion topic regarding logic. I do not foresee an argument due to the weak firearms rules overall for D&D.
They're asserting your logic is flawed because there's no reason to believe that the Gunner feat has the trait removing the disadvantage is an implication that the rule is broken. This is flawed logic because it's not rational to assert that any game feature that removes a penalty is implying the existence of the penalty is in error. Here are some other more likely possible reasons for the trait on the gunner feat:
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
When firing a firearm at a target from "point blank" range (or at a target while the target's ally is right next to you), the fact that you are close enough so that the enemy might reach out and swat your hand before you pull the trigger some percentage of the time means that your overall accuracy will be worse than if you were positioned 10 or more feet away from all enemies. The rules do a pretty nice job of factoring that in.
Yeah I'm okay with it, I suspect a dude with a sword would be able to disrupt my shot with my flint lock pistol.
Hey, as long as who you're playing with all agree on how to go about it, that's really all that matters. But I do think if something is meant to be used for range, when it's not getting that range it should at least affect the attack in some way.