D&D 5E Can a Reach Weapon stop someone attacking you?

[Lord Vangarel]

I'm struggling to get my head round the advantages of a reach weapon. Can anyone clarify it for me?

 

[Baumi]

* You can attack someone without going into melee with him .. therefore you can move, attack and then move away without causing a free Attack.

* With bigger reach you can have much more targets (tactical advantage, especially with multiattack).

* In a narrow tunnel, you can stand behind a friend and still attack an enemy in front of the group.

* You can stand behind a barrier and attack, where the enemy cant reach you.

* Pole Jump!

* The Polearm Feat is awesome!

 

[iserith]

Can a Reach Weapon stop someone attacking you?

Sure, but the DM will have to rule on that based on the player's goal and approach.

Player: Jean Guisarme takes a stand and thrusts his polearm toward the goblins. "Stay back! Or you'll be picking your guts up off the floor!" I motion to my wounded friends to haul ass into the antechamber.
DM: Okay, let's see a DC 15 Charisma check. If you succeed, the goblins will spend their next turn dodging or disengaging and falling back - your comrades can safely withdraw. If you fail, your comrades can safely withdraw but several goblins will grab your polearm, forcing a hard choice.
Player: Can I apply my Intimidation skill?
DM: Absolutely.
Player: *rolls*

See the post above mine for other benefits of reach weapons.

 

[AriochQ]

The 10' reach can sometimes lead to a lot of opportunity attacks if your opponents move around a lot.

 

[Pickles III]

It's often the reverse actually as they rarely leave your engagement range.

 

[lumenbeing]

As for the "stand behind a friend and attack" part of it, I have decided to give disadvantage in my game in some situations, and I never allow the butt end bonus attack when they have an ally between them and their target. Think about trying to swing a pole axe. With your ally in the way, the arc would have to be straight down on either side of him. You could not swing from side to side or a miss would certainly mean bludgeoning damage to your friend. Now try to imagine whirling the opposite end of the weapon around without hitting your friend. I don' see it.

 

[AriochQ]

As for the "stand behind a friend and attack" part of it, I have decided to give disadvantage in my game in some situations, and I never allow the butt end bonus attack when they have an ally between them and their target. Think about trying to swing a pole axe. With your ally in the way, the arc would have to be straight down on either side of him. You could not swing from side to side or a miss would certainly mean bludgeoning damage to your friend. Now try to imagine whirling the opposite end of the weapon around without hitting your friend. I don' see it.

Seems rather arbitrary. If a person has spent a good portion of their life practicing and mastering a particular form of combat, I think they could manage complex manuevers like you describe above with no problems. I would be hestitant to overrule RAW based on personal opinion of how I would think it would work, unless of course I happened to myself be a master of a the polearm fighting style.

 

[lumenbeing]

I would also make the assumption that someone who spent time mastering what is possible with a weapon could do just that. But I would not call something that is an unusually hard move and interferes with the use of the weapon a "complex" maneuver. I call it disadvantage or I call it impossible. This is no more overruling RAW than telling a halfling rogue that it is impossible to hide behind his friend when a monster is looking right at him, watching him do it. Some situations just make using features that would otherwise work in other situation impossible.

 

[AriochQ]

... This is no more overruling RAW than telling a halfling rogue that it is impossible to hide behind his friend when a monster is looking right at him, watching him do it. Some situations just make using features that would otherwise work in other situation impossible.

Which is ALSO overruling RAW since it specifically states a halfling can hide behind a creature one size larger. If a monster was specifically watching a halfling, I would probably give the creature advantage on his check, which is a situation dependent modifier. But there are also circumstances where they would not receive advantage, i.e. if they are in an active melee, they are probably more concerened with not being hit than with watching the halfling, OR it is a dimly lit area making it easier for the halfling to hide.

 

[Quartz]

This is no more overruling RAW than telling a halfling rogue that it is impossible to hide behind his friend when a monster is looking right at him, watching him do it.

Of course, the monster could just have the Alertness feat, which specifically counters this.