D&D 5E Ranged Attacks in Close Combat

[Jer]

I think if you want to rule it that way the RAW allow that interpretation. I don't really think it's the intent of the rules, though, since this edition - like the last few previous editions - generally seem to be on the "yes with a penalty" side of the fence with rulings rather than a "no you can't do that" side. So it doesn't "feel" right to me to disallow it entirely even though it could be argued that you could read the rules that way. And on the other hand, the idea that you're going to fire a longbow point blank into someone you're engaged in melee with doesn't "feel" right either - so I can see how you'd want to disallow it.

Though if you had an ally engaged with the same target who could distract them, then we get back to where I think it would be okay to shoot them point blank with a longbow - so really the problem for me is less about the distance and more about whether or not they should be able to interfere with your shot, which brings it right back to disadvantage sounding like the right thing to do. (To be honest my ranged player wouldn't even think to try to fire with disadvantage rather than switch to a melee weapon, so it's literally never come up).

 

[cooperjer]

What's is interesting is that some games are played on a grid and thus in increments of 5-ft. Some games are not played on a grid. If a weapon can be used to attack a creature that is at distance and the creature is at a distance of 5-ft then the weapon can be used against that creature. If that distance is 0-ft then it seems logical that the weapon cannot be used against that creature. By that logic a ranged weapon cannot be used to attack a swarm or elemental that occupies the same area as a PC.

The text of the PH attempts to join the two different play styles, grid and non-grid, with one rule. Because of that, the rule can be misunderstood.

In your original post you provide a diagram of what clearly gives disadvantage when attacking a creature at range; however, the position of the X monster only needs to be adjacent to the Hero. It does not need to be in between the Hero and the target.

XH_______Y also provides disadvantage for the (H)ero to make a ranged attack at the monster Y.

In my mind, I think of this as the monster X causing enough distraction / concern of bodily harm that the ranged attacker cannot get a good aim before firing a shot. I should state that I don't shoot any type of weapon so I really have no reference as to the difficulty of shooting. About the closest thing I can relate to this is bowling. I would say I'm at disadvantage in rolling a ball down the lane is there is another bowler within 5-ft of me also rolling a ball down the lane at the same time.

 

[kbrakke]

You are aware many fantasy games don't allow ranged fire in melee at all?

If I were to adopt this, I wouldn't use the phrasing "literally impossible". I would recall that much of 5E's success is based on its simplicity, and instead assume an inability to fire in melee was merely a simplification.

I was not aware of that, my fantasy gaming experience being restricted to D&D, Pathfinder, and Dresden. But as another point of evidence Ranged Attacks in the PHB
"You can make ranged attacks only against targets within a specified range... Some ranged attacks, such as those made with a longbow or a shortbow, have two ranges. The smaller number is the normal range, and the larger number is the long range. Your attack roll has disadvantage when your target is beyond normal range, and you can’t attack a target beyond the long range." - PHB p. 195
Again no mention of there being a lower bound on the range. And a natural reading of within a specifided range would indicate a range of Blank - 120 would include creatures within five feet of you. I don't think 5e has an established history of starting indexing at 5 feet.

Compare to Melee Attacks later on that page.
"Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach." - PHB p. 195
It then defines your reach as 5ft for most creatures.

Just reading what is there, there is not much compelling evidence for ranged attacks within five feet to be impossible. The only thing is what you have found where they say range attacks are "at distance", but that isn't really firm, whereas I find "within a specified range" sans restrictions at five feet to be compelling evidence for no restriction.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The Sharpshooter 10th level ability from the Fighter UA a couple of weeks ago:

Close-Quarters Shooting

At 10th level, you learn to handle yourself in close combat.
Making a ranged attack roll while within 5 feet of an enemy
doesn’t impose disadvantage on your roll.

In addition, if you hit a creature within 5 feet of you with
a ranged attack on your turn, that creature can’t take
reactions until the end of this turn.

The second sentence specifically calls out a situation when shooting at an enemy within 5 feet, so the rules allow it by default, even though it is not spelled out in the core books.

 

[Li Shenron]

...seriously?

RANGE

You can make ranged attacks only against targets within
a specified range.

Since when "within" a certain number implies a minimum?

 

[Iry]

The fact is that a monster is either adjacent to you or at a distance. 5E has just given up on squares.

If you say "a distance" can include 5 feet of distance, the idea ranged is excludatory to melee loses all meaning. Then melee becomes just a subset of ranged.

I'm not sure what you mean. The terms Melee and Reach are useful keywords in regards to the effects granted by spells, feats, and class abilities.

And we are talking about a curious system that only cares that a creature is adjacent to you, regardless of the actual Reach of that creature, or its capability to harm you.

 

[Plaguescarred]

...seriously?



Since when "within" a certain number implies a minimum?

I was about to quote this rule. You can make range attacks anything within range indeed, including at 5 feet.

 

[Skyscraper]

I understand the intellectual hoops you're making everyone hop through here to get the cats to the desired pedestals (and I appreciate the exercise and find it interesting enough to have made the jumps myself), but this is simply too far out of the natural habitat of the beast. There is nothing that has ever prevented shooting adjacent, neither in these rules or prior ones, and the p. 146 text that you cite, "a ranged weapon is used to attack a target at a distance", together with the "melee weapon is used to attack a target within 5 feet", is an introductory text that provides the general principle of the types of weapons to set the table for the reader to let him know what's coming, as opposed to a specific restriction on rules. I would not fight this in a mud pit with my DM if he wanted to enforce your tentative interpretation, but I would call it for what it is: a houserule that is not supported by my reading of the PHB. The markings are perhaps not in clean dark lines as much as they could, but they are clear enough to lack any confusion IMO.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Could we read that to mean you cannot attack targets within 5 feet of you using a ranged weapon?

That is, you don't get disadvantage on shooting X - it's impossible. Crossbow Expert might lift the disadvantage, but it's still impossible to shoot monster X!

(You can shoot monster Y, but not monster X)

You could of course take a step back and shoot at X from a distance of 10 feet with no disadvantage either with or without the feat, but you would crucially have to eat an opportunity attack to do so, assuming X lacks reach. (While this is rather beside the issue, I wanted to at least mention it)

What do you say?

I say that if this is the intent, then the Net is an exceptionally strange ranged weapon, since its normal range is 5'. Your reading implies that it is actually illegal to use the net at its normal range. Not just the usual "take disadvantage for using a net against a non-incapacitated target" weirdness, but "this weapon has no legal normal range but they gave it one anyway" weirdness.

If your interpretation were correct I'd have expected to see the net listed as "range: -/15'" instead of "range:5'/15'".

As far as I'm concerned, that disproves your hypothetical reading.

 

[CapnZapp]

the Net is an exceptionally strange ranged weapon

Not saying you're wrong, but the net is an exceptionally strange ranged weapon