D&D 5E Ranged Attacks in Close Combat

[fjw70]

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!

Let's put it this way. The "rule" is too vague to be considered a useful rule so I would classify it as flavor text. The interpretation is rules lawyery.

 

[Harzel]

Suddenly, I got thinking

Stop it - we don't pay you to think.

I am merely asking you if you feel this is a reasonable (alternate) reading of the rules?

Considering all the context that has been cited by others, I think I would have to classify your alternate reading as "tortured, though not provably wrong". Which lands outside the bounds "reasonable". IMO.

It is an interesting observation about how the rules are written, though.

 

[ammulder]

I think Disadvantage is an appropriate remedy for "something you'd have to be kinda crazy to try." Such as pulling out your bow when someone's swinging a greataxe at you. I wouldn't say you CAN'T do it, but...

 

[Blue]

Hmm. Looking up the ranged keyword only talks about you can't make an attack above long range, nothing about a minimum range. Circumstantial that you would expect limitations on both ends of the range to be in the same place, but not hard and fast.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hmm. Looking up the ranged keyword only talks about you can't make an attack above long range, nothing about a minimum range. Circumstantial that you would expect limitations on both ends of the range to be in the same place, but not hard and fast.

Well, using natural speech (not game rules) I could say that the expression "at range" doesn't include adjacent foes, because those are not at range.

So it wouldn't be inconcievable to go, yes there is no minimum range, but you still need to be at range, which doesn't include melee.

I mean, once you get to 0 feet, it's pretty clear that's not included in "range" even without them not saying something about a minimum range.

 

[Blue]

Well, using natural speech (not game rules) I could say that the expression "at range" doesn't include adjacent foes, because those are not at range.

So it wouldn't be inconcievable to go, yes there is no minimum range, but you still need to be at range, which doesn't include melee.

I mean, once you get to 0 feet, it's pretty clear that's not included in "range" even without them not saying something about a minimum range.

But you can attack with melee at range. It specifically says that you can attack opponents up to 5' away. (PHB pg 146) Forget grids and such, if you were reading that as natural language it could be someone 4 feet away on the other side of a couch or what have you. Grids are not part of the default 5e game, we can't assume that creatures live in five foot granularity. Someone who was new to RPGs & wargames or who's experience was with things like FATE that just has zones would read that different then those of us who have been used to it.

(Oh, BTW, I'm just debating because it's fun. I see your original point that you could make that argument. I don't think it's the likely result for someone fresh reading it, but I can see how it's not spelled out clearly and it could be interpreted like that.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

I agree that you probably could read it that way, but that there's nowhere near enough evidence to support the idea that it's reasonable to do so.

If the idea of making Ranged attacks less powerful compared to Melee is the end-goal... I think one interesting way to accomplish is to give all combatants wielding Melee weapons a +1 or +2 bonus to AC while in melee. The idea being that when it comes to melee weapon fighting, parrying with your weapon is just as much of a attack block as using a shield is or letting your armor deflect it. So armor grants you an AC number, a shield grants you a bonus to AC, and a melee weapon grants you a bonus to AC. And ranged weapon users and spellcasters do not get that bonus to AC because ranged weapons are not built for blocking attacks, and the spellcaster has nothing in their hands to block with.

Does this increase ACs across the board for Melee combatants? Yup. Does a tank wearing platemail, shield, and a weapon now have a baseline AC 22 (23 with the Defense fighting style)? Yup. But at least you do now make going Melee a bit more attractive, as you can now withstand more attacks.

I've never tried this so I have no idea if it would accomplish what is wanted, or if it makes combat too sluggy... but it does give a better solution to the question of why a sword-wielder in melee has the same AC as someone holding a bow while stuck in melee, when the sword is actually build to block and defend attacks in addition to delivering them.

 

[nswanson27]

You point out something that to me is a glaring omission in the rules - really surprised they didn't clear this one up in the errata. Maybe is wasn't a squeaky enough wheel in gameplay to be noticed.

 

[innerdude]

I actually really like Savage Worlds' compromise approach to this problem --- ranged attacks within 5' (i.e., the attacker and defender are in adjacent squares) can only be made with a one-handed ranged weapon. Two-handed ranged weapon and "thrown" ranged attacks are not possible. Savage Worlds' compromise works because it assumes not just fantasy weaponry, but modern weaponry as well. So ranged attacks are possible from an adjacent square with pistols/hand crossbows, but not much else.

Savage Worlds also gives a circumstantial defense bonus to the defending character, since it's assumed that if they're within five feet of you, you are more capable of altering the attack trajectory.

 

[machineelf]

I think you're reading too much into the p. 146 description of ranged and melee weapons. They are just explaining basically what those weapons are for, and a ranged weapon is for ranged attacks, which is why you get disadvantage when using it at close range.

It seems fairly clear to me that the intent of the rule is to impose disadvantage on ranged attacks against anyone, including the person right in your face, if an enemy is within 5 feet of you.