D&D 5E Reach weaon and opportunity attack

[Shin Okada]

In 5e, an opponent provokes an opportunity attack from PC when it goes out of the PC's reach. That means, if a PC is using a reach weapon and has 10-feet reach, an opponent can run freely within a 10-feet radius circle centered on the PC. For that, sometimes, using a reach weapon is a bad idea for someone wants to be a tank. Am I missing something?

 

[Rya.Reisender]

No, that's correct. If you have a reach weapon the area in which an opponent can move is larger as the OA only happens after leaving the 10ft radius.
However, at the same time your area of control is also larger, so it can be situational.
Reach weapons are particularly bad against ranged attackers since they can get out of 5ft range and avoid the disadvantage penalty.

Edit: Also Opportunity Attacks are not THAT powerful and you can easily avoid them with disengage, so it doesn't really make too much of a difference.

 

[jaelis]

There is a gray area for characters armed with two weapons having different reaches. IMO it makes sense to allow an OA with a 5 ft reach weapon when an opponent moves from 5 ft to 10 ft away, even if you are carrying a 10 ft reach weapon as well. And since everyone has an unarmed strike, that option is basically always available.

To me that just seems logical, and I think it works fine in the game because it gives you a choice to exert more precise battlefield control at the cost of (typically) lower damage on the OA.

Of course, this doesn't let anyone make two OAs, since you still just have one reaction.

--
Oh and I see the sage supports this interpretation:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/0...reaches-when-does-it-get-opportunity-attacks/
Still, I wouldn't argue much against a DM ruling the other way.

 

[Thurmas]

It always struct me as weird that it is when they leave your reach. To me, you should get an AoO when they leave THEIR reach.

Why? To me, to make an AoO means you are going to attack an opponent that can no longer attack you. So if you have a 10' reach, and they have a 5' reach, you should get your one attack when they move 5' away, since you can all out attack instead of having to also defend against them. If they have a 10' reach weapon, that should keep them safe until they move more than 10' away. That 10' weapon lets them step away and keep you at bay. That means that someone with a polearm can basically disengage for free vs anyone that only has a 5' reach, which also makes sense to me. Two creatures with 5' weapons would still work the same way it does now.

The way it currently is, it makes no sense that you don't get an AoO at 5' when they move away, while the guy with a dagger does. You have to wait til they are at 10', even though you can make normal attacks while they are within 5'.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There is a gray area for characters armed with two weapons having different reaches... since everyone has an unarmed strike, that option is basically always available.

That just flashed me back to 3e. Pole-arm. Armor spikes.

I was not expecting to revisit that kind of weirdness in 5e...

 

[jaelis]

That just flashed me back to 3e. Pole-arm. Armor spikes.

I was not expecting to revisit that kind of weirdness in 5e...

I agree it is a 3E kind of ruling. Probably part of why I wouldn't expect every table to follow it. But at the same time, if you're minding the difference between AOs at 5 ft and at 10 ft, you are probably have a 3e sort of mindset anyway.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree it is a 3E kind of ruling. Probably part of why I wouldn't expect every table to follow it. But at the same time, if you're minding the difference between AOs at 5 ft and at 10 ft, you are probably have a 3e sort of mindset anyway.

Maybe a more 5e/TotM-friendly approach might be something like being open to the DM ruling that a creature with a longer weapon/greater reach, gets an OA the first time an enemy with significantly less reach engages it (moves up to and attacks it in melee on the same turn). That's about what reach OAs boiled down to, after that you were both likely shuffling around with 5' steps. As with any rulings, it needn't be perfectly consistent. If someone disengages and re-engages in melee again, the DM might give the reach advantage a second OA, or might deny the first one for a creative closing tactic....

 

[Caliban]

That just flashed me back to 3e. Pole-arm. Armor spikes.

I was not expecting to revisit that kind of weirdness in 5e...

Dwarven Battlerager with a polearm....

 

[Nevvur]

It always struct me as weird that it is when they leave your reach. To me, you should get an AoO when they leave THEIR reach.

Why? To me, to make an AoO means you are going to attack an opponent that can no longer attack you. So if you have a 10' reach, and they have a 5' reach, you should get your one attack when they move 5' away, since you can all out attack instead of having to also defend against them. If they have a 10' reach weapon, that should keep them safe until they move more than 10' away. That 10' weapon lets them step away and keep you at bay. That means that someone with a polearm can basically disengage for free vs anyone that only has a 5' reach, which also makes sense to me. Two creatures with 5' weapons would still work the same way it does now.

The way it currently is, it makes no sense that you don't get an AoO at 5' when they move away, while the guy with a dagger does. You have to wait til they are at 10', even though you can make normal attacks while they are within 5'.

Never thought about it like that, but it makes a lot of sense. However, I think the idea behind opportunity attacks is the assumption you turn to face whichever direction you're moving, thereby exposing yourself to attack. Disengaging is more like backpedaling, which is why it eats an action (limiting the amount of 'stuff you can do' in one turn). At least, that's how I generally picture it. How it gets described in the combat narrative can vary wildly.

 

[kagayaku]

It always struct me as weird that it is when they leave your reach. To me, you should get an AoO when they leave THEIR reach.

Why? To me, to make an AoO means you are going to attack an opponent that can no longer attack you. So if you have a 10' reach, and they have a 5' reach, you should get your one attack when they move 5' away, since you can all out attack instead of having to also defend against them. If they have a 10' reach weapon, that should keep them safe until they move more than 10' away. That 10' weapon lets them step away and keep you at bay. That means that someone with a polearm can basically disengage for free vs anyone that only has a 5' reach, which also makes sense to me. Two creatures with 5' weapons would still work the same way it does now.

The way it currently is, it makes no sense that you don't get an AoO at 5' when they move away, while the guy with a dagger does. You have to wait til they are at 10', even though you can make normal attacks while they are within 5'.

Maybe the idea they were going for is that it's harder to fight up close with a pole weapon? Though I wouldn't really call 5ft 'up close' myself. I actually didn't know this was how the rule worked until reading this thread though, not sure what I was expecting.