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

[AriochQ]

I make no judgment as to a DM's particular ruling in this discussion. What I'm factually stating is that a player is not entitled to any sort of check for any action he or she has his or her character take in the game. A check is used to resolve uncertainty that the DM establishes. If the DM says that the orc can see the halfling despite the halfling's attempt to hide behind the human, then that's what happens - the DM narrates the results of the adventures' actions. If the DM says the fictional action of hiding behind the human has an uncertain outcome, an ability check is called for.

A player has no recourse to the rules which serve the DM who brings them into play as needed. A player only has recourse to the fiction. It is, of course, reasonable for a player whose character is in an exact or substantially similar fictional situation to expect to make a check for a given fictional action (or to succeed outright or fail outright) if he or she has done so before. But players are not entitled in any way to make one without the DM's say so. In fact, if you're a player, you want to strive for auto-success. Asking or demanding to make a check is just asking for a chance to fail!

If a player has an issue with his or her DM's rulings, that's a discussion to be had outside the context of the game.

I agree with you in theory, but it appears we disagree on where we set the bar.

For example:

A player who wants to walk across the surface of a lake without magical aid? Impossible. Will automatically fail.

A player who wants to jump off a 25 foot roof, into a haycart, while unlocking a set of leg shackles on the way down, with one hand. Make a roll. With disadvantage. Target number is 35. (Probably won't make it, but the player should realize that when they come up with such a hair brained scheme. On the flip side, if they do make it, they will talk about it for years).

There are many game systems which use 'complications' as a mechanic. So, while auto-success may be desirable from a player perspective (or for mundane, easily completed tasks), adding a random factor adds to the storytelling. Also, I feel it is important to give the player the DC after they describe their action, but before they decide on actually doing it, that allows them to modify the action if their expectation was different than my ruling.

 

[AriochQ]

AriochQ has asserted that I'm on a "slippery slope" because of how I choose to rule. I assume he would say the same to MIke Mearls.

The reason I rule the way I do is because players try to exploit sneak attack. For a rogue, sneak attack and hiding go hand in hand. So letting a rogue dip behind his friend and call that hiding, let's him call his next bow shot a sneak attack. Then he says he hides behind the ally after the shot. This goes on and on. So in that stupid, 4e influenced fictional world, the enemy he is firing upon is so stupid that he never expects that arrow to come flying out at him. A "naturally stealthy" racial ability is not the ability to turn your target into a retard. So no, I'm not "negating the entire racial ability" A thoughtful player will hear me describe the footfalls of the goblins coming from down the hall, about the turn the corner, and they will hide behind their big barbarian friend, then they will get ONE sneak attack shot off. Maybe then they run around a corner and try to hide behind their donkey so they can get another one off when the goblins give chase.
This is fun. A player trying to cheese me is not fun and not the type of fiction My game exists in. The same goes for the pole arm master folks. Feats and feature do not always work. The DM decides.

The general consensus is that class balance for Rogues is based on them being able to sneak attack each round of combat. Of course, the could do this by having an ally adjacent to the target, or gaining advantage some other way, but the hide/attack/repeat mechanic is a legitimate method as well RAW. Your method essentially limits the rogue to attacking every other round, if they want to get sneak attack, or only getting sneak attack once per combat. If you run the combat numbers, I would say that is a pretty severe tweak to rogues. As I said previously, your table, your rules but I don't think any player attempting to follow RAW should be accused of trying to 'cheese' you.

 

[iserith]

I agree with you in theory, but it appears we disagree on where we set the bar.

For example:

A player who wants to walk across the surface of a lake without magical aid? Impossible. Will automatically fail.

A player who wants to jump off a 25 foot roof, into a haycart, while unlocking a set of leg shackles on the way down, with one hand. Make a roll. With disadvantage. Target number is 35. (Probably won't make it, but the player should realize that when they come up with such a hair brained scheme. On the flip side, if they do make it, they will talk about it for years).

There are many game systems which use 'complications' as a mechanic. So, while auto-success may be desirable from a player perspective (or for mundane, easily completed tasks), adding a random factor adds to the storytelling. Also, I feel it is important to give the player the DC after they describe their action, but before they decide on actually doing it, that allows them to modify the action if their expectation was different than my ruling.

I haven't set a bar with which to agree or disagree though because I have not said how I would rule in the situation being discussed. What I'm saying is that you can rule your way and lumenbeing can rule his or her way and you'd both be right as far as that goes. You might even rule the same way from time to time with regard to reach weapons given a particular fictional situation.

 

[Morlock]

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.

Just some anecdotal evidence, but, I used to be into eastern martial arts, way back when. Our junior instructor was a Ranger type (can't remember what he was exactly; elite, but not SEAL elite). Anyway, one day after class he asks me to be his sparring dummy, and use a bokken (wooden katana) against his "yari" (spear), a wooden pole. He was into melee weapons, and I had no idea what I was doing, but MAN, did he ever cream me. I couldn't get anywhere near him. For a good 10 minutes or so, he just kept "killing" me. I think I might've gotten a single near-hit the whole time, and not for lack of trying. I might've been able to get a hit on him IRL by letting him impale me...MAYBE. I came away with the strong impression that reach is a Big Deal. *Cough* never mind skill, I tell you.

Anyway, to respond to what you said, he wasn't using a pole-axe, so this probably isn't all that germane, but he didn't do any sweeping arcs, at all. All of his movements were very conservative, and mostly involved pushing and pulling, not going up-down or side-to-side. FWIW.

So, in my experience, YES, a reach weapon can stop you. Frequently and unpleasantly.

 

[iserith]

AriochQ has asserted that I'm on a "slippery slope" because of how I choose to rule. I assume he would say the same to MIke Mearls.

The reason I rule the way I do is because players try to exploit sneak attack. For a rogue, sneak attack and hiding go hand in hand. So letting a rogue dip behind his friend and call that hiding, let's him call his next bow shot a sneak attack. Then he says he hides behind the ally after the shot. This goes on and on. So in that stupid, 4e influenced fictional world, the enemy he is firing upon is so stupid that he never expects that arrow to come flying out at him. A "naturally stealthy" racial ability is not the ability to turn your target into a retard. So no, I'm not "negating the entire racial ability" A thoughtful player will hear me describe the footfalls of the goblins coming from down the hall, about the turn the corner, and they will hide behind their big barbarian friend, then they will get ONE sneak attack shot off. Maybe then they run around a corner and try to hide behind their donkey so they can get another one off when the goblins give chase.
This is fun. A player trying to cheese me is not fun and not the type of fiction My game exists in. The same goes for the pole arm master folks. Feats and feature do not always work. The DM decides.

It's worth considering that the real issue at hand is that you have players that are willing to abuse and exploit your rulings. You shouldn't have to make particular rulings because you fear your players will take advantage of you. That's defensive DMing and speaks to an adversarial relationship. Consider addressing this with your players and getting on the same page with regard to the goals of play, that is, having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of the game.

 

[lumenbeing]

It's worth considering that the real issue at hand is that you have players that are willing to abuse and exploit your rulings. You shouldn't have to make particular rulings because you fear your players will take advantage of you. That's defensive DMing and speaks to an adversarial relationship. Consider addressing this with your players and getting on the same page with regard to the goals of play, that is, having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story as a result of the game.

I have addressed it with the player who did this, and he has been perfectly accepting of my ruling on the matter for a long time now. He still finds plenty of ways to get his sneak attack in without resorting to the cheese I described. But now, especially at public tables I'm upfront with players about "Hold the cheese please" both in regards to hide/SA/hide, and second rank pole arm butt spikes. Maybe that's defensive DMing but I'm not being paid to DM and you get all kinds on Encounters night. If they don't like it they can go fly a kite.
Building a character for the specific purpose of exploiting a tactic that doesn't make fictional sense is lame. That kind of character has no character at all. I could really give a rats fart if you are doing you max DPR. I have no interest in adjudicating that kind of game, which is why I play 5e, not 4e.

 

[lumenbeing]

Just some anecdotal evidence, but, I used to be into eastern martial arts, way back when. Our junior instructor was a Ranger type (can't remember what he was exactly; elite, but not SEAL elite). Anyway, one day after class he asks me to be his sparring dummy, and use a bokken (wooden katana) against his "yari" (spear), a wooden pole. He was into melee weapons, and I had no idea what I was doing, but MAN, did he ever cream me. I couldn't get anywhere near him. For a good 10 minutes or so, he just kept "killing" me. I think I might've gotten a single near-hit the whole time, and not for lack of trying. I might've been able to get a hit on him IRL by letting him impale me...MAYBE. I came away with the strong impression that reach is a Big Deal. *Cough* never mind skill, I tell you.

Anyway, to respond to what you said, he wasn't using a pole-axe, so this probably isn't all that germane, but he didn't do any sweeping arcs, at all. All of his movements were very conservative, and mostly involved pushing and pulling, not going up-down or side-to-side. FWIW.

So, in my experience, YES, a reach weapon can stop you. Frequently and unpleasantly.

How would having another person standing between you affected his thrusts?

 

[AriochQ]

How would having another person standing between you affected his thrusts?

Look up "Pennsic War Field Battle" on Youtube and you will see hundreds of hobbyists fighing very effectively with polearms from the second rank, including butt spikes to the face. While they are using wooden weapons, they are a close approximation for actual weapons and they hit full force with legal target area being anything above the knee.

 

[lumenbeing]

The general consensus is that class balance for Rogues is based on them being able to sneak attack each round of combat. Of course, the could do this by having an ally adjacent to the target, or gaining advantage some other way, but the hide/attack/repeat mechanic is a legitimate method as well RAW. Your method essentially limits the rogue to attacking every other round, if they want to get sneak attack, or only getting sneak attack once per combat. If you run the combat numbers, I would say that is a pretty severe tweak to rogues. As I said previously, your table, your rules but I don't think any player attempting to follow RAW should be accused of trying to 'cheese' you.

Hide/attack repeat is RAW and thus a legit tactic. But hiding is not possible when an enemy can see you. That's also RAW (you are choosing to ignore this fact).

The Monty Python video on not being seen is a beautiful illustration of why it doesn't work fictionally.

 

[AriochQ]

Hide/attack repeat is RAW and thus a legit tactic. But hiding is not possible when an enemy can see you. That's also RAW (you are choosing to ignore this fact).

The Monty Python video on not being seen is a beautiful illustration of why it doesn't work fictionally.

The errata posted yesterday says the enemy needs to see you clearly. That is a fact you are choosing to ignore. Being obscured by an ally allows you to hide. The rules are crystal clear after yesterdays errata.