D&D 5E 5' Step and AoO

[pedro2112]

Yes, if we were at the same table. If you are DM your version correct, hope you would accept my version if DM. Another DM may have another interpretation.

So long as everybody at the table is enjoying the game.

Ranger, let's be clear here, it isn't your interpretation, it's your house rule. The rules allow a PC to take the disengage action and move anywhere (both away from and towards enemies) and not provoke Opportunity Attacks. They also are giving up their action (attack or spell) by doing so. I'm not making a value judgement on your house rule, but just pointing out it isn't an interpretation of the rule, but a change in it.

 

[Scorpio616]

they would rather do something constructive with their action besides just moving away,

Surviving is a constructive thing. If the player is suffering a terminal case of "But I wanna Act"-itis, can't stand to spend a round moving away, and then the action doesn't work out as planned, the character dies. And that's a good thing. They gambled their characters life not to have to take a withdraw action that they didn't consider fun, so they get to sit out a lot more actions waiting for a raise or writing up a new character.

 

[Paraxis]

Surviving is a constructive thing. If the player is suffering a terminal case of "But I wanna Act"-itis, can't stand to spend a round moving away, and then the action doesn't work out as planned, the character dies. And that's a good thing. They gambled their characters life not to have to take a withdraw action that they didn't consider fun, so they get to sit out a lot more actions waiting for a raise or writing up a new character.

Wizard uses disengage, then moves 30' away. If the enemy isn't already engaged by another of the wizard's allies it just moves up to the wizard and hits him on his turn. If the monster is already engaged my a wizard's ally that is another potential target and wizard might as well try and damage/kill/stun/charm/frighten the enemy and be effective.

If one of my characters spends a round just moving, something is very very wrong.

 

[Theovis]

If one of my characters spends a round just moving, something is very very wrong.

Really, if that EVER happens, the train has left the tracks? Besides the player wasn't "just moving", they were escaping a very dangerous opponent. If there are no friends to come tie up that opponent before they get murdered, there might have bigger problems than having one boring round.

 

[Paraxis]

Really, if that EVER happens, the train has left the tracks? Besides the player wasn't "just moving", they were escaping a very dangerous opponent. If there are no friends to come tie up that opponent before they get murdered, there might have bigger problems than having one boring round.

I didn't say ever, or anything about leaving the tracks.
There are better ways to handle the situation as a caster, in this thread a few have been mentioned, shocking grasp, spells that stun, spells that teleport, casting a spell that charms or does enough damage to kill the engaged enemy. Disengage +30' of movement only puts you 30' away so the enemy just moves up and attacks you anyway, what did your disengage action do then?

Most of the time the best course of action is direct damage, the worst status condition in the game is dead, a dead enemy can't hurt you or your allies, a dead enemy sooner rather than later is less healing that needs to be done.

Focus fire, and don't waste your turn.

 

[Rhenny]

Sometimes disengage is a great option. With 30' move it is pretty easy to find a spot where the foe might take Ao. Some of the other spell suggestions are good too (shocking grasp, thunderwave, shield as reaction).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, if we were at the same table. If you are DM your version correct, hope you would accept my version if DM. Another DM may have another interpretation.

So long as everybody at the table is enjoying the game.

I don't mean to gang up on you, and you are free to rule whatever you like at your table, but I would advise a general caution against giving too much power to the names of game elements. Sometimes a name is just an example of one thing the mechanics can describe. It is seriously limiting to box mechanics in your imagination down to the name it's been given. I'm sure we could all come up with many examples where this would be a bad idea. Sometimes the name given to a set of mechanics is positively the WORST way of imagining what the mechanic does.

In this case, "weave through the fray" might be a better name for "disengage" but it's not as to-the-point for the most common use of the action. Sure, it seems a little strange if someone says "I use the disengage action to engage the orc shaman!"

Don't get me wrong - I hate it when people try to use the exact wording of rules to justify doing something the rule was clearly not intended for, but I don't think that's the case here. Even if it sounds like you use the action to do precisely the opposite of what it's called.

 

[pemerton]

the ONLY thing that causes an AoO is moving out of an enemies reach

<snip>

The only penalty for being next to an enemy is disadvantage on ranged attack

<snip>

Also of note the ranged attack disadvantage penalty is only if within 5 feet, you don't provoke AoO until you leave reach, so against a giant for example you back up so you are 10' away and shoot your arrow or cast your ranged spell, you don't provoke an attack for moving and you don't take disadvantage on the attack roll.

Surely this is a bug rather than a feature? Why, in the fiction, is it easier to take pot shots at giant while within its enormous reach than at an orc while within its much more modest reach?

 

[Mr Fixit]

Surely this is a bug rather than a feature? Why, in the fiction, is it easier to take pot shots at giant while within its enormous reach than at an orc while within its much more modest reach?

Could be it's not a matter of reach, but of target's proximity? If an orc, or any other critter, is right there beside me, a meter or two away, I'll probably have a harder time aiming and shooting at him. If I'm double or triple that distance away, although still within reach of certain monsters, it's not unreasonable to assume it'll be somewhat easier to aim.

This, to me, is more of a question regarding opportunity attacks when using ranged weapons within reach, then of advantage/disadvantage. However, since OAs don't apply here anymore, it's a moot point.

 

[Paraxis]

Surely this is a bug rather than a feature? Why, in the fiction, is it easier to take pot shots at giant while within its enormous reach than at an orc while within its much more modest reach?

I just run the game by the rules, and expect to play by them as well. The fiction adapts to the mechanics.