D&D 5E Ranged Attacks in Close Combat

[Yunru]

I agree in principle, but to use the grid system as an example, a character that's "adjacent" to another creature can actually be between 0 and 10 feet away from them, as they both occupy 5 cubic feet volume (I guess technically they could be even further if one can fly). 10 feet is definitely enough to be able to fire, and you can always manage at least 5 feet, which is a bit more questionable, but not impossible (I'd say... maybe disadvantage? ).

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree in principle, but to use the grid system as an example, a character that's "adjacent" to another creature can actually be between 0 and 10 feet away from them, as they both occupy 5 cubic feet volume (I guess technically they could be even further if one can fly). 10 feet is definitely enough to be able to fire, and you can always manage at least 5 feet, which is a bit more questionable, but not impossible (I'd say... maybe disadvantage? ).

Sure, but on the other hand, the grid is perhaps my best case for this line of reasoning

If you think of distance as squares between you and your target, you get:
Melee distance 0 squares (except for reach of course)
Ranged distance >0 squares

Which neatly ties back to the phrasing used Either you're at range or not. Either you can shoot with your bow or you can't...

Again, this is mostly just a thought experiment, but I find there is something there. The "2 foot away" argument does, after all, ignore the way the games treat distances of 5 feet or less as special.

Arguments using 2 feet as a distance (ab)use the natural language overlay used by this edition... almost in the same way my argument does

 

[Chris Kirk]

CapnZapp I think you were too quick to dismiss the Unearthed Arcana evidence as "unofficial". These articles are co-written by Jeremy Crawford who was one of the authors and managing editor of D&D 5e. This makes them as official as additional content gets in my book.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

You're wrong. Disproof by counterexample is a well-known proof technique: http://cpsc.ualr.edu/srini/DM/chapters/review2.1.html

Hypothesis: A (maybe ranged attacks are illegal within 5'; maybe all odd numbers are prime)
Extrapolation: A -> B (if that were intended, no ranged weapons would have a 5' range; if so, 9 is prime)
Observation: !B (and yet, they do; and yet, 9 is divisible by 3)
Conclusion: !A (therefore, ranged attacks are not illegal within 5'; therefore, odd numbers are not all prime)

 

[jrowland]

You're wrong. Disproof by counterexample is a well-known proof technique: http://cpsc.ualr.edu/srini/DM/chapters/review2.1.html

Hypothesis: A (maybe ranged attacks are illegal within 5'; maybe all odd numbers are prime)
Extrapolation: A -> B (if that were intended, no ranged weapons would have a 5' range; if so, 9 is prime)
Observation: !B (and yet, they do; and yet, 9 is divisible by 3)
Conclusion: !A (therefore, ranged attacks are not illegal within 5'; therefore, odd numbers are not all prime)

Logic? We don't need no stinkin' logic! We pretend people can fly and shoot fireballs out of their arse!

Kidding aside, the premise is not on the merits of logic soundness or fallacy, but rather on (fantasy game rpg reasonable natural language) rules and their interpretation. I find the shift away from logical (sic) rules refreshing and a feature of 5E. Discussions like this can greatly illuminate the nature of the game in general and my game in the specific. As an example, I like the gamist idea of not allowing ranged to work to adjacent, regardless of the logic of the rules, the RAW, RAI, or versimilitude. Will I implement it? No, probably...I don't see the point (in my game). But its good to think about the game in this way. I might later.

Rulings, not Rules.

In other words: Judgements, not Logic

 

[CapnZapp]

You're wrong. Disproof by counterexample is a well-known proof technique: http://cpsc.ualr.edu/srini/DM/chapters/review2.1.html

Hypothesis: A (maybe ranged attacks are illegal within 5'; maybe all odd numbers are prime)
Extrapolation: A -> B (if that were intended, no ranged weapons would have a 5' range; if so, 9 is prime)
Observation: !B (and yet, they do; and yet, 9 is divisible by 3)
Conclusion: !A (therefore, ranged attacks are not illegal within 5'; therefore, odd numbers are not all prime)

Now I'm afraid you're rambling, Hemlock.

The way you compare rpg rules with prime numbers make my head hurt.

You can't draw that conclusion.

For one thing, D&D employs an exception-based rules approach, see page 8. That alone might explain nets. Or, I don't know, perhaps one of the authors didn't synch with the other. But again you're missing my greater point. Just the fact that you apply formal proof techniques to something that lacks all stringency tells me you don't really know what you're doing.

But you aren't taking my friendly word for it. Since I do not intend to derail this subject, and definitely do not intend to devolve it into a "right" vs "wrong" issue, I'm done discussing both your "proof" and your "techniques". Good day.

 

[Arial Black]

CapnZapp I think you were too quick to dismiss the Unearthed Arcana evidence as "unofficial". These articles are co-written by Jeremy Crawford who was one of the authors and managing editor of D&D 5e. This makes them as official as additional content gets in my book.

Specifically, Crawford wrote the rules and understands how they work; he is the rules authority of 5E.

If he writes (or co-writes) an UA article which includes a rule that can only work if ranges attacks within 5-feet are possible, then he must believe that they are, in fact, possible.

If the rules authority believes that ranged attacks within 5-feet are possible, then they are.

 

[CapnZapp]

Specifically, Crawford wrote the rules and understands how they work; he is the rules authority of 5E.

If he writes (or co-writes) an UA article which includes a rule that can only work if ranges attacks within 5-feet are possible, then he must believe that they are, in fact, possible.

If the rules authority believes that ranged attacks within 5-feet are possible, then they are.

We're not discussing intent here. It is completely obvious to everyone that the rules mean to allow it. I have clearly stated I didn't start this to invalidate anyone's game. While it remains an intriguing possibility that the rules do prohibit it, I certainly don't think anyone is really playing that way in practice.

What I find fascinating is how difficult it is to find actual rules support for the notion

 

[dave2008]

I agree in principle, but to use the grid system as an example, a character that's "adjacent" to another creature can actually be between 0 and 10 feet away from them, as they both occupy 5 cubic feet volume.

I hate to be that guy, but it is 125 cubic feet of volume 5x5x5=125 cubic feet.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Kidding aside, the premise is not on the merits of logic soundness or fallacy, but rather on (fantasy game rpg reasonable natural language) rules and their interpretation. I find the shift away from logical (sic) rules refreshing and a feature of 5E. Discussions like this can greatly illuminate the nature of the game in general and my game in the specific. As an example, I like the gamist idea of not allowing ranged to work to adjacent, regardless of the logic of the rules, the RAW, RAI, or versimilitude. Will I implement it? No, probably...I don't see the point (in my game). But its good to think about the game in this way. I might later.

Rulings, not Rules.

In other words: Judgements, not Logic

I agree that "you can't use ranged attacks on someone in melee distance" could be an interesting house rule, and doesn't violate suspension of disbelief particularly badly. But CapnZapp started this thread by inviting others to disprove his hypothesis; he's repeatedly insisted that this thread isn't about a house rule, it's about whether rules-lawyering supports his initial interpretation. This is definitely a Rules Not Rulings thread--or at least, the OP was, and all the responses I've made to it have been on that subject.