D&D 5E Ranged Attacks in Close Combat

[FormerlyHemlock]

Considering all the context that has been cited by others, I think I would have to classify your alternate reading as "tortured, though not provably wrong". Which lands outside the bounds "reasonable". IMO.

It's provably wrong because of Net and the Sharpshooter UA.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think Disadvantage is an appropriate remedy for "something you'd have to be kinda crazy to try." Such as pulling out your bow when someone's swinging a greataxe at you. I wouldn't say you CAN'T do it, but...

Ironically, this also makes crazy stunts more attractive when you're already at disadvantage anyway, e.g. against displacer beasts you might as well!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ironically, this also makes crazy stunts more attractive when you're already at disadvantage anyway, e.g. against displacer beasts you might as well!

Yeah, that's an amusing consequence. 3e could lead to something like that, too: when enough penalties added up, might as well throw in a full power attack - at least it'll hurt if you roll that 20.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's provably wrong because of Net and the Sharpshooter UA.

A bit of changed subject, but, no.

You can't bring up a specific item to explain the general. It simply doesn't work that way.

And UA is not official.

Now, please understand I'm treating this only as a mind game, and I'm not seriously telling anyone this is the way to read the rules.

If you want to read into the Net a comment upon the general feel free, but it's far from a proof. More like an indication.

 

[jrowland]

Another (little) thing to make you go Hmmmm...

So what about a Tiny creature occupying your space? I think we all agree its allowed (with Dis) in RAW, but should it given CapnZapp's premise? In this case, it is not at ranged. Its in the same space!

IMHO, it would be very strange to see a Archer/Fighter launch multiple arrows at a bat in its own space with a longbow!

 

[transtemporal]

Yes, it's possible because it's also possible in real life.

 

[Arial Black]

Captain: Range to target?

Weapons Officer: Two feet.

'Two feet' is a valid distance.

'Distance' doesn't begin at five feet, with '4-feet 11 inches' somehow not being a 'distance' but '5-feet one inch' suddenly being a distance. Y'know, because the crux of the 'not allowed' side is 'natural language'.

And the deliberately tortured interpretation of 'distance', in a fluff passage, is the only 'evidence' on the 'not allowed' side of the debate, while the 'allowed but with disadvantage' side has UA rules which hinge on the fact that it is allowed, it being impossible to attack with a net under the other interpretation, the actual crunch text specifying 'within' a distance but no minimum, and the totality of D&D for 40 years allowing it in every iteration, with no language to suggest it has been changed....

....if the evidence for each side to be weighed, then it would be unreasonable to conclude that ranged weapons cannot target creatures with a 'distance' of 5-feet.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A bit of changed subject, but, no.

You can't bring up a specific item to explain the general. It simply doesn't work that way.

You haven't refuted the proof. All you did last time was make a joke about the Net and then ignore the rest of the post.

If your interpretation were correct, Net's range would be "-/15'" and not "5'/15'".

 

[CapnZapp]

You haven't refuted the proof.

It isn't proof, and therefore doesn't need refuting. You're using the highly specific to talk for the very general and you shouldn't - its a fallacy of illicit transference.

Since this is a light-hearted friendly discussion I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, I'm in no way trying to tell people they're playing the game wrong. I just found the phrasing of ranged weaponry and thought it interesting to see how far you could take the argument. I must say I'm fascinated by the troubles we are having shooting it down. Thank you all for your efforts