Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 NuclearSunset May 01, 2015 10:16:58	In previous editions, casting a spell or making a ranged attack while in melee would (under normal circumstances) trigger an opportunity attack. In 5e, however, they changed this so that doing so was instead at disdvantage - which does still make sense and I do think its more balanced since characters can only make one opportunity attack on a turn. But if a caster isnt casting an attack spell, and is instead casting a spell that triggers a save (which is the majority of offensive spells I think), then there is no consequence for that caster doing so in melee. Or am I missing something?
#2 jonathonhawke May 01, 2015 10:28:24	No, you're not missing anything.
#3 transcendantviewer May 01, 2015 10:30:07	I was under the impression that using ranged attacks against a creature that you're not in melee-range while a creature was threatening you was the only way you gained disadvantage on rolls like that. Because if you're accurate, then melee spells like Shocking Grasp would be worthless.
#4 jonathonhawke May 01, 2015 10:33:45	You're right.  I missed that NuclearSunset didn't specify a ranged attack spell.  Melee attack spells do not incur disadvantage.
#5 NuclearSunset May 01, 2015 10:35:53	jonathonhawke wrote:
(Reply to #4) NuclearSunset	jonathonhawke wrote:
#7 mellored May 01, 2015 10:45:50	Ranged attacks (either ranged spell, or ranged weapon) are at disavantage in melee.  Save spells, which are the majority of the spells, don't have any penalty.   As for balance, spells arn't as powerful as previous editions (they only scale by spell slots).  So they removed some of the down side of casting as well. i.e.  a greatsword does 2d6+3 and magic missile does 3d4+3.   Generally spells are for control, utility, and area damage (fireball), with martial classes getting the single target damage.
#8 Noon May 02, 2015 4:02:24	Being in melee is already bad for a spell caster.   They don't need to have that AND can't cast spells.   Further when their spells aren't hugely different from other classes (perhaps spread damage instead of high single target damage), it'd be unbalanced to penalise them over the idea they must go all sucky when confronted with melee (which is really a bit of a holy cow)
#9 danyc May 02, 2015 7:33:57	Noon wrote:
#10 Illithidbix May 02, 2015 8:06:59	NuclearSunset wrote:
#11 AaronOfBarbaria May 02, 2015 9:37:24	It's "balanced" because save-based spells cannot score critical hits, which means that all other things equal, a spell with an attack roll is slightly more potent - so it's a trade off of not getting disadvantage (or your opponent having advantage) but you get no shot at double damage.
#12 Noon May 02, 2015 16:47:40	And basically it also is the slaying of a minor sacred cow (ie 'casters must suck if caught in melee'). There's just that to live with.   Can see why it got slayed, though.   If in one campaign the caster never gets stuck in melee but in another campaign the caster is always stuck in melee, it'd really suck for the caster.   If you tried to beef up the caster to make up for that, then in the campaign where the caster never gets stuck in melee, he becomes over powered.   Having melee have a dramatic effect on casters leads to one or the other result.   So you can see how they'd just go for removing having a dramatic effect.
#13 NuclearSunset May 03, 2015 14:43:43	thanx for the insights and perspectives :D