D&D 5E Ranged Attacks in Close Combat

[guachi]

There is no minimum distance stated anywhere for ranged attacks, though logic would dictate it isn't zero. Since creatures can't normally occupy the same square, if using a grid, it stands to reason that all creatures will be at a distance greater than zero from one another as long as at least one creature wants to be.

That is, a creature could always move, say, a foot within his own square and be at >0 feet from another creature and make a ranged attack.

Though I wouldn't object too much if a DM said you couldn't use a ranged attack on a creature within 5 feet of you.

 

[Colder]

This all hinges on the passage that states that ranged weapons are used to attack from a distance, but the fact that ranged weapons are used to attack from a distance doesn't exclude them from being able to attack from a distance of 5 feet.

Shoes are used for walking, but that doesn't mean they can't be used to hammer a nail in a pinch.

 

[Iry]

I can see where you are coming from, but I agree with Kbrakke.

It does not seem to be RAI. If the rules were meant to imply you cannot use archery from 5 feet away, I honestly believe they would indicate that specifically.

It also does not seem to be RAW. 'A Distance' can include 5 feet of distance.

It also does not seem to be realistic. I can shoot you with a bow, crossbow, javelin, or throwing dagger from 5 feet away and it would still do potentially lethal damage (though disadvantage represents aim dodging).

 

[fjw70]

I would say the vagueness of the attack at a distance statement is too vague on which to make any rules interpretations. This is rules lawyer territory.

 

[Krachek]

Let me add I do have read the Sage Advice on feats.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats/

Again the text is crafted to avoid saying one thing or the other. Whether this is intentional or coincidental I cannot say.


Again, it doesn't state outright it talks about attacks at the same enemy you're within 5 feet of.

You are still struggling with the new DnD who have curved rules.
But historically DnD have always allow shooting adjacent or engaged enemy. Penalties changed depends on edition.
They better have use bold and underline to mark changes on this point.
So yes, your reading go a bit too far, but is in line with those who want to toned down Dex base character.

 

[CapnZapp]

The lack of certainty in the wording "Make attacks at a distance" makes me hesitant to assert strongly that they must be beyond 5 ft from you.

Absolutely.

As I hope to have made clear, it's not as if I'm trying to sell y'all on the notion we have being doing it all badwrongfun up until now

It's just that you could argue that a natural-language reading of that paragraph gives you an exclusionary interpretation.

 

[CapnZapp]

Also from a perspective in playing the game I wouldn't understand the decision to prevent this. I don't imagine bows being constructed in such a way as to literally prevent you from firing them at people adjacent to you. Same with spells. I can accept it being harder to aim when someone is distracting you, but not literally impossible to use.

You are aware many fantasy games don't allow ranged fire in melee at all?

If I were to adopt this, I wouldn't use the phrasing "literally impossible". I would recall that much of 5E's success is based on its simplicity, and instead assume an inability to fire in melee was merely a simplification.

 

[CapnZapp]

This all hinges on the passage that states that ranged weapons are used to attack from a distance, but the fact that ranged weapons are used to attack from a distance doesn't exclude them from being able to attack from a distance of 5 feet.

Shoes are used for walking, but that doesn't mean they can't be used to hammer a nail in a pinch.

Now you're just showing off If you continue to be this reasonable, we can't have a proper rules-lawyery argument!

 

[CapnZapp]

It also does not seem to be RAW. 'A Distance' can include 5 feet of distance.

Just to argue against that particular bit.

The fact is that a monster is either adjacent to you or at a distance. 5E has just given up on squares.

If you say "a distance" can include 5 feet of distance, the idea ranged is excludatory to melee loses all meaning. Then melee becomes just a subset of ranged.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would say the vagueness of the attack at a distance statement is too vague on which to make any rules interpretations. This is rules lawyer territory.

Not to rules lawyer your dismissal but all rules need to be interpreted.

You're free to argue this discussion is rules-lawyery, but you can't escape interpreting a rule just because it's vague

...in fact the more vague a rule is, the more interpretin' it needs!