D&D 5E Reach weaon and opportunity attack

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe the idea they were going for is that it's harder to fight up close with a pole weapon?

That's fair. The way it worked in 3.x was fairly complicated and led to silliness, specific rule exceptions to reduce silliness, etc...
... but it also let us play 'battlefield control' fighter builds, which were pretty fun...

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Thus, no gray area.

Of course when I leave your smaller area you have to do your OA with your smaller weapon.

Unless you're a monk, that means damage 1.

And, as you say yourself, that spends your reaction for that turn.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[lonelynoose]

Don't think of an AoO on just an opponent in front of you. Properly positioned you can attack one opponent and have a separate opponent just within range (but out of range with their weapon). Attack one and get an AoO on the other when it moves. Tactically, I think this is the benefit of weapons with reach.

 

[Blue]

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'.

Reach is already something that's heavily abstracted and gamified. I've fought short swords vs. two handed sword in the SCA and once inside where the two-hander can effectively swing, the short sword wielder can attack with impunity. Forget for polearms and other reach weapons that have an even smaller striking surface on the far side.

I like the idea of an attack leaving their reach as an additional option, but a reach wielder having full control when adjacent doesn't model reality. 3.5 used to do it more realistically with gaps where you could be inside someone's reach - but that didn't make a better game.

 

[Thurmas]

Reach is already something that's heavily abstracted and gamified. I've fought short swords vs. two handed sword in the SCA and once inside where the two-hander can effectively swing, the short sword wielder can attack with impunity. Forget for polearms and other reach weapons that have an even smaller striking surface on the far side.

I like the idea of an attack leaving their reach as an additional option, but a reach wielder having full control when adjacent doesn't model reality. 3.5 used to do it more realistically with gaps where you could be inside someone's reach - but that didn't make a better game.

I agree with your points. I just find it annoying thatvit doesn't have consistency. If a reach weapon can attack something at 5' feet no problem, it should also AoO someone at 5' no problem.

 

[Bardbarian]

A reach weapon only has a extended reach when attacking, when a character is in this situation they have a 5 foot reach and would take opportunity attacks normally based upon their standard 5 foot reach. There is a feat which adds a reach mechanic with a polearm over 5 feet but this only functions in the situation mentioned in the feat. so in the OP example when the enemy leaves 5 feet of the wielder of the polearm they would trigger an opportunity attack. likewise when they leave 10 feet of the wielder they would not trigger the attack because reach only adds the effect while the character is using the weapon to actively attack.

 

[jaelis]

Thus, no gray area.

Don't know I'd agree with that... the Sage has clarified the intentions of the rules, but as written they are ambiguous enough to support multiple interpretations. (Including, as Bardbarian points out, that you can't take OAs at 10 feet even with a reach weapon.)

Unless you're a monk, that means damage 1.

Well, 1 + Str mod. Unless you have the Tavern Brawler feat. Or the Warcaster feat. Or if your race has a natural weapon ability. Or if your reach weapon is a whip and your other weapon is a sword or something.

 

[eainmonster]

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.

Agreed. It mostly boils down to simplicity, overall. There's a ton of ways that OAs COULD be done (and have been), but it's all so much simpler now, and combat flows much more easily.