D&D 5E How do OAs trigger when an enemy has multiple reaches?

[CleverNickName]

What about RAI? An opportunity attack is a melee attack against someone "fleeing or passing by." Just backing away from a dragon's claws isn't fleeing or passing by. You're still fighting the dragon. In this sense, there's no OA due until a character tries to leave an opponent's furthest reach. An OA is retroactive, anyway: "the attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." So the DM should be able to choose which attack mode is used, given that even the shortest mode doesn't trigger until an enemy has left his range already.

This is better than the 3-zone approach, because it prevents the "Which-Zones-Did-She-Leave" minigame, and it streamlines (ahem) OAs until a character is actually "fleeing."

Point of order, though: you don't provoke an OA by "fleeing," you provoke one by moving out of a creature's reach. A target's motives for moving out of that reach don't come into play.

 

[MarkB]

We've been playing that you measure threat range not per specific attack, just threat range per creature. So anywhere from 5 to 15 feet you're still in their threat range and have not left it, and only after you leave their 15' range do you trigger.

This does open a minor exploit for ranged attackers in melee. Normally the dichotomy for such characters is that they must either attack with disadvantage if within 5 feet of the foe, or move away and risk being attacked themselves. With the above rule, they can step back 5 feet with no risk and then attack normally.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This does open a minor exploit for ranged attackers in melee. Normally the dichotomy for such characters is that they must either attack with disadvantage if within 5 feet of the foe, or move away and risk being attacked themselves. With the above rule, they can step back 5 feet with no risk and then attack normally.

Yes. And that is problematic. So even if it is a bit more complicated, I track reaches seperately.

 

[BluejayJunior]

What about RAI? An opportunity attack is a melee attack against someone "fleeing or passing by." Just backing away from a dragon's claws isn't fleeing or passing by. You're still fighting the dragon. In this sense, there's no OA due until a character tries to leave an opponent's furthest reach. An OA is retroactive, anyway: "the attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach." So the DM should be able to choose which attack mode is used, given that even the shortest mode doesn't trigger until an enemy has left his range already.

This is better than the 3-zone approach, because it prevents the "Which-Zones-Did-She-Leave" minigame, and it streamlines (ahem) OAs until a character is actually "fleeing."

Since it hasn't been FAQ'd at all and Jeremy Crawford confirmed the multiple zone approach, I would say that is RAI. If that wasn't the intention, I would expect to see someone say that wasn't the intention when it was designed. Unless we have something to say otherwise, I think we need to assume RAW and RAI are the same here.

 

[GMMichael]

Point of order, though: you don't provoke an OA by "fleeing," you provoke one by moving out of a creature's reach. A target's motives for moving out of that reach don't come into play.

More support for Furthest-Reach-Only: fleeing becomes the more likely motivation as a character gets further away.

Jeremy Crawford confirmed the multiple zone approach, I would say that is RAI. If that wasn't the intention, I would expect to see someone say that wasn't the intention when it was designed. Unless we have something to say otherwise, I think we need to assume RAW and RAI are the same here.

There's an overriding intention though: consistent rules interpretation. It's more important that the entire structure remains standing than one part of it getting called out for being built strangely. Interpreting OAs based on RAI instead of RAW calls all clearly written rules into question. That's not good for the franchise, but it can work for your table.

The opportunity attack was born back in 3.0 edition (it probably had inspiration in other games before that) and it answered the turn-based combat problems:
1) How do I create a defensive line when opponents can just waltz through any 5-foot gap in it? (Hence, "passing by.")
2) How can my opponent run away from me without consequence, as if I'm letting him go unharmed?

An attack of opportunity is intended to answer those problems by saying, "now they can't!" To apply that to the 3-range-dragon problem, you can apply the Crawford solution or the DMMike solution:

Crawford (RAW):
1) As your opponent (the PC) waltzes through, you have three different decision points to consider, occurring chronologically, to harm your opponent/defend the line.
2) As your opponent moves near you (possibly without fleeing), three zones around you allow you to get an extra attack against him.

DMMike (RAI):
1) As your opponent (the PC) waltzes through, you can attack him once with any of your melee attacks if he continues beyond your (furthest) reach.
2) As your opponent moves near you, combat continues as normal. If your opponent leaves the range of (all) your melee attacks, you can make an attack with any weapon that would have not let him go unharmed.

Note that the OP problem diminishes or vanishes when you eschew the "optional" grid rules. If you say "we form a defensive line!" then it's clear that someone trying to get through will be stopped or attacked. If you say "I back away from the dragon's claws!" then it's clear that you're not fleeing. Or if you say "I'm getting away from the dragon!" then it's clear that the dragon will get an OA with whatever means it had available.

 

[BluejayJunior]

More support for Furthest-Reach-Only: fleeing becomes the more likely motivation as a character gets further away.

I don't think that supports your furthest reach argument at all. Not really sure how you think it supports that.

There's an overriding intention though: consistent rules interpretation. It's more important that the entire structure remains standing than one part of it getting called out for being built strangely. Interpreting OAs based on RAI instead of RAW calls all clearly written rules into question. That's not good for the franchise, but it can work for your table.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

Crawford (RAW):
2) As your opponent moves near you (possibly without fleeing), three zones around you allow you to get an extra attack against him.

Not sure where you're getting this from. This isn't RAW at all. You don't trigger OAs by moving closer to a dragon. You only do it by leaving the reach of a weapon/attack. When you go from 5' to 10' away from the dragon, it can make an attack with its bite. Going from 10' to 15', its claw attack. Going from 15' to 20', its tail attack. Moving from 15' to 10' doesn't trigger its tail attack because you are not leaving the reach of the tail.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Man, the OA rule would have been much better if it was when you move and a creature leaves YOUR reach. Better advantage to reach weapons, and makes stepping away from a dragon you can no longer effectively threaten a dangerous endeavor.

Still, to the rules, I think OA is much simpler -- if you leave reach the opponent can take an attack on you as a reaction. Which reach isn't defined, so it's up to the controller of the opponent, and which attack isn't defined, so it's up to the controller of the opponent. This follows the idea that the creature in question decided ambiguities and make it's less cumbersome to track things, as you don't have to be constantly aware of "bands".

That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with going with bands.

 

[GMMichael]

Sometimes I get ahead of myself.

I don't think that supports your furthest reach argument at all. Not really sure how you think it supports that.

CNN said that a victim's motives don't come into play. And well, you don't really know if a victim is fleeing or passing by if he has simply moved out of the reach of one weapon, but stayed in the reach of two others. But if a victim leaves the reach of all weapons, it's more clear that the victim was actually fleeing or passing by. So an RAI OA rule would say, "you know, let's just wait on that OA until we have a better idea of what the victim is up to."

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

It's possible Crawford had to address the intention of following the rules as written as primary, and subordinate the intention of OAs. Which is to say, the RAW of OAs takes precedence over the RAI.

Not sure where you're getting this from. This isn't RAW at all. You don't trigger OAs by moving closer to a dragon. You only do it by leaving the reach of a weapon/attack. When you go from 5' to 10' away from the dragon, it can make an attack with its bite. Going from 10' to 15', its claw attack. Going from 15' to 20', its tail attack. Moving from 15' to 10' doesn't trigger its tail attack because you are not leaving the reach of the tail.

I didn't say "moving closer to a dragon." I said "moving near," which is what's happening when you go from 5' to 10', or 10' to 15'. The spirit of 5e is to play 3.5e without slogging through rules. In this special case, OAs don't accomplish that.

 

[MarkB]

Sometimes I get ahead of myself.


CNN said that a victim's motives don't come into play. And well, you don't really know if a victim is fleeing or passing by if he has simply moved out of the reach of one weapon, but stayed in the reach of two others. But if a victim leaves the reach of all weapons, it's more clear that the victim was actually fleeing or passing by. So an RAI OA rule would say, "you know, let's just wait on that OA until we have a better idea of what the victim is up to."

Why does motivation matter here? Bear in mind that one common motivation for moving back from an opponent in 5e is to negate the disadvantage for using ranged attacks while within 5 feet. That isn't fleeing - but OAs are intended to counter such behaviour, forcing the ranged attacker to choose between safety and getting a good shot.

I didn't say "moving closer to a dragon." I said "moving near," which is what's happening when you go from 5' to 10', or 10' to 15'. The spirit of 5e is to play 3.5e without slogging through rules. In this special case, OAs don't accomplish that.

Nor are they designed to. They are intended to penalise moving away from an opponent, not moving towards them. The only exception is the Polearm Master feat, and a monster would need to have specific text in their stat block in order to gain a similar benefit.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

huh. So, since a polearm can be used to attack someone both 5 feet or 10 feet away, a polearm fighter can use their AoO when an opponent steps back from 5 to 10 feet And/OR when they step back from 10 to 15 feet.

Generally, I've been taking the longest reach and allowing people to move inside that reach unmolested. Mostly because the 5e rules state that AoO only occur when you leave someone's threatened space.

I like the multiple reach method better.