Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kbrakke" data-source="post: 6968533" data-attributes="member: 6781797">The lack of certainty in the wording &quot;Make attacks at a distance&quot; makes me hesitant to assert strongly that they must be beyond 5 ft from you. As my best evidence I present the last to paragraphs of the &quot;Range&quot; entry&quot;The first is the weapon’s normal range in feet, and the second indicates the weapon’s maximum range. When attacking a target beyond normal range, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. You can’t attack a target beyond the weapon’s long range.&quot; - PHB p. 147Given how strongly they state that you cannot attack creatures beyond the maximum range, I would expect that they would state &quot;When making a ranged attack you cannot attack creatures within 5 feet of you.&quot; if that is what they meant. Given 0 feet away falls within the first range band of all ranged weapons I don't see compelling evidence to prohibit making ranged attack rolls against creatures within that range.My summation is; You can read &quot;at a distance&quot; as a contrast to &quot;Within five feet&quot;, but it is not a strongly worded as I would expect if that were the case. If I were writing that section to mean that I would simply say &quot;a ranged weapon is used to make an attack against a target more than five feet away from you&quot;. Also they describe what range means, and at no point indicate that the range does not include the five feet in front of you.Also from a perspective in playing the game I wouldn't understand the decision to prevent this. I don't imagine bows being constructed in such a way as to literally prevent you from firing them at people adjacent to you. Same with spells. I can accept it being harder to aim when someone is distracting you, but not literally impossible to use.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kbrakke, post: 6968533, member: 6781797"] The lack of certainty in the wording "Make attacks at a distance" makes me hesitant to assert strongly that they must be beyond 5 ft from you. As my best evidence I present the last to paragraphs of the "Range" entry "The first is the weapon’s normal range in feet, and the second indicates the weapon’s maximum range. When attacking a target beyond normal range, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. You can’t attack a target beyond the weapon’s long range." - PHB p. 147 Given how strongly they state that you cannot attack creatures beyond the maximum range, I would expect that they would state "When making a ranged attack you cannot attack creatures within 5 feet of you." if that is what they meant. Given 0 feet away falls within the first range band of all ranged weapons I don't see compelling evidence to prohibit making ranged attack rolls against creatures within that range. My summation is; You can read "at a distance" as a contrast to "Within five feet", but it is not a strongly worded as I would expect if that were the case. If I were writing that section to mean that I would simply say "a ranged weapon is used to make an attack against a target more than five feet away from you". Also they describe what range means, and at no point indicate that the range does not include the five feet in front of you. Also from a perspective in playing the game I wouldn't understand the decision to prevent this. I don't imagine bows being constructed in such a way as to literally prevent you from firing them at people adjacent to you. Same with spells. I can accept it being harder to aim when someone is distracting you, but not literally impossible to use. [/QUOTE]

Verification