| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1FrogReaverSep 22, 2014 0:46:56 | If I have a fighter that uses a halbred (has reach) I understand that my OA's with that halbred only work when an enemy tries to leave my halbreds reach and not when they move from being adjacent to me to 10ft away from me.
Basically an enemy can move to anysquare within 10ft of me and will not provoke an OA from my halbred due to its reach. I'm fine with that. But I'm a smart fighter. I tell my DM that as the goblin tries to move away from me that I want to use an Opporunity attack with my elbow (an improvised melee weapon with reach 5) to attack the goblin. Should he allow that attack?
And a followup question. If he doesn't allow that attack then is there any situation I can use improvised melee attack on the goblin as an OA while I'm weilding a weapon with reach? |
| #2JRutterbushSep 22, 2014 1:08:11 | You can't make an improvised attack with your elbow, because that would be an unarmed strike. But yes, you could use an unarmed strike to deal 1 damage with an opportunity attack. You could instead, however, make an improvised attack with the butt end of your halberd, at the standard 1d4 damage for improvised weapons. Your DM could rule against this, of course... but if your DM is the type who would forbid that, then it's likely that being unable to make an improvised attack is the least of your problems in that game. |
| #3NovacatSep 22, 2014 1:14:13 | As a DM, if one of my players asked to do this, I would allow it, but only once I've made sure they know what they're doing. Making an improvised weapon attack is pretty much universally a waste of an attack, and I would feel bad if I allowed it for a player that didn't realize how bad of a decision it was. |
| #4Plaguescarred1Sep 22, 2014 1:29:15 | Yes he could. Nothing in the rules says if you have multiple reaches that you can only make OAs at the farthest one which was also confirmed by Mike Mearls in a tweet recently in reference to a dragon. |
| #5RCanineSep 22, 2014 2:22:36 |
|
| #6Plaguescarred1Sep 22, 2014 2:27:23 |
|
| #7RCanineSep 22, 2014 2:31:57 |
|
| #8NovacatSep 22, 2014 2:36:34 |
|
| #9Plaguescarred1Sep 22, 2014 2:50:48 |
|
| #10TimboramaSep 22, 2014 6:22:34 | I'd allow making an improvised/Unarmed attack against a goblin movie from 5 to 10ft while the PC is wielding a Reach weapon, if only for the fact that it creates an interesting situation of Action Economy: Does the Fighter go for the guaranteed attack at lesser damage? Or does he not and hope the goblin moves from 10ft to 15 ft, thus provoking with his Halberd (thus getting a MUCH better attack!) |
| #11FrogReaverSep 22, 2014 10:27:00 | Thanks for the responses.
|
| #12RCanineSep 22, 2014 10:30:26 |
|
| (Reply to #5)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #12)FrogReaver |
|
| #15RCanineSep 22, 2014 11:49:14 |
|
| #16NovacatSep 22, 2014 12:07:11 |
|
| (Reply to #13)Timborama |
|
| #18Plaguescarred1Sep 22, 2014 13:43:00 |
|
| #19NovacatSep 22, 2014 13:43:09 |
|
| #20WibbleNZSep 22, 2014 14:35:45 |
|
| #21NovacatSep 22, 2014 14:39:13 |
|
| #22WibbleNZSep 22, 2014 15:35:47 |
|
| #23NovacatSep 22, 2014 15:41:36 | Consider this, then...
|
| #24WibbleNZSep 22, 2014 15:54:02 |
|
| #25NovacatSep 22, 2014 16:08:38 | Your argument is ludicrous. I'll just leave it at that. |
| #26Plaguescarred1Sep 23, 2014 2:50:09 | Also by strict reading if you coud only make unarmed strike while unarmed shouldn't you never be able to do so since unarmed strike is a weapon you're always armed with?
|
| #27ClutchboneSep 23, 2014 14:59:19 | ~A melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. ~Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it. ~You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. ~To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. ~When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike, as shown in the weapon table in chapter 5. ~Tavern Brawler: You are proficient with improvised weapons and unarmed strikes. ~Polearm Master: [no mention of reach restriction with butt-end, assume 10ft reach] ~While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.
So, unarmed strikes are weapons that everyone has at all times, but are not proficient in without a feat. Proficiency is not a requirement for opportunity attacks. Therefore, you can use unarmed strikes for opportunity attacks.
With Polearm Mastery, your reach is 10ft with the haft. Opportunity attacks only trigger when they leave your reach, not when they move within it, so you can't use the haft for opporunity attacks within 5ft.
With Polearm Mastery, RAW you can neglect to opportunity attack an approaching enemy with your glaive reach at 10ft and instead choose to do so with your unarmed strike reach at 5ft, but this is a poor choice.
You can definitely use unarmed attacks while holding a two-handed weapon. Nothing prevents you from performing an unarmed strike (i.e. kick) while holding a large object (ie a painting) with two hands, or while you are handcuffed, or if you have no arms at all (all unarmed). So why does holding a long pointy stick prevent you from kicking? If they really wanted to prevent this, they would have said "~~When you are unarmed, you can only fight in melee by making an unarmed strike", but they did not.
Also, you add your STR mod to the 1 damage on unarmed strikes.
|
| #28RCanineSep 23, 2014 17:03:02 |
|
| #29ClutchboneSep 23, 2014 17:44:26 | Fyi, Duelist works as long as you are "wielding" only one (melee) weapon. It works with a shield, an arcane focus, a rubber chicken, whatever. You can't "wield" your own body though so it doesn't apply to unarmed strikes. Unarmed strike is a simple melee weapon, as per pg. 149, that characters are not proficient in without the Tavern Brawler feat. You can't be disarmed of your arms or legs - without losing HP ;) - so why wouldn't you be able to make an unarmed strike at any time? Its a (crappy) simple melee weapon that you can't ever lose. |
| #30RCanineSep 23, 2014 20:21:58 |
|
| #31WibbleNZSep 23, 2014 20:28:05 |
|
| (Reply to #27)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #33jonathonhawkeSep 23, 2014 21:58:10 | Or it could have been written "Even when you are unarmed." It does not, however read "Only when you are unarmed." |
| #34FrogReaverSep 23, 2014 23:20:07 | So to answer my own question: Nothing in the rules allows or disallows making an unarmed attack while holding a weapon. Most DM's would allow such an option because it makes sense in the genre and its typically an inferior choice to attacking with a weapon.
So the question becomes: when a DM allows a weapon wielder to also use unarmed attacks what is the proper rules interaction with OA's and allowing unarmed attacks while wielding a polearm?
I believe the dragon tweet sheds alot of light: Dragon Question: So an Adult Red has claws (5ft) and bite (10ft) and tail (15ft). If I run from adjacent, when does he get to OA. Mearls Quote: none - only if you move away, dragon picks which one to use. claws make the most sense.
By OA's RAW require the dragon to have a reach to be able to perform an OA. If you define the Dragon as having reach 5 then he obviously cannot attack anything further than 5 squares from him. If you define it as 15ft then he can attack anything within 15ft but he could only OA things going from 15ft to 20ft. For Mearls quote to be true about a dragon being able to OA something going from 5ft to 10ft the Dragon must have a variable reach that depends upon the attack he is using.
In other words a dragons reach is defined only in terms of the attack he is using. However, this understanding is problematic because an OA depends upon the dragon having a predefined reach that has to be evaluated before even determing if he gets to use an attack. Since reach is evaluated only at the time an attack is chosen then the dragon has an undefined reach for purposes of determining if he can OA. Thus the conclusion is that RAW and Mearls quote are contradictory.
Therefore I propose that by RAW the Dragon actually has reach 15ft (defined as the reach of its longest attack). Since the dragon has reach 15ft then it by RAW cannot make an OA unless something moves from 15ft to 20ft away. No more funky OA interactoins and things appear to work more as less as they should.
This decision is also supported by the fact that on pg. 195 PHB A creature's reach and an attacks reach are used more or less interchangably: Most CREATURES HAVE A 5 FOOT REACH and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them ... Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) HAVE MELEE ATTACKS WITH A GREATER REACH THAN 5 FEET, as noted in their descriptions. |
| (Reply to #30)SteveMND |
|
| #36FrogReaverSep 24, 2014 9:34:04 |
|
| #37TimboramaSep 24, 2014 10:18:37 |
|
| #38Plaguescarred1Sep 24, 2014 10:19:19 |
|
| (Reply to #38)FrogReaver |
|
| #40Jay_Ibero_911Sep 24, 2014 10:39:12 | Fot what it's worth, I don't think the term "unarmed" is actually defined anywhere. If you believe you can ONLY make unarmed strikes when unarmed, then the sword+fist builds do not function either, because even though you have one hand free, you would not generally be considered unarmed while wielding a weapon in the other hand.
All of this goes back to the ridiculous rules regarding reach in this edition anyway. If it worked like 4th edition where reach effected your attack range but NOT your OA range (without the threatening reach ability), things would be much simpler and more consistent.
Or with the interpretation that the reach property only applies while attacking. Then OA's only are triggered when leaving adjacent squares, and polearm master only triggers when moving to an adjacent square. |
| (Reply to #40)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #38)SteveMND |
|
| #43Plaguescarred1Sep 24, 2014 11:17:54 | That was his initial answer, and then he changed his position after more discussions, he is of the opinion weapon affect reach;
|
| (Reply to #43)SteveMND |
|
| #45RCanineSep 24, 2014 13:22:07 |
|
| #46YunruSep 24, 2014 13:30:10 | I don't see the problem. Reach varies with weapons. That fits with everything the developers tweeted.
Thus the logical conclusion is that if a character had a Reach and non-reach weapon (in this case, a polearm and an Unarmed Strike), they have a Reach of 5, and a Reach of 10, dependent on which weapon they use. |
| (Reply to #46)FrogReaver |
|
| #48YunruSep 24, 2014 17:44:22 | Wrong. Said character needs at least one defined reach. Subtle difference. |
| (Reply to #48)FrogReaver |
|
| #50RCanineSep 24, 2014 19:29:38 |
|
| #51DireachSep 24, 2014 21:02:19 | My two cents: Reach is a beneficial quality: "this weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it". I take this to mean that you can attack an adjacent target, or one that is 5 feet further away. Reach effectively sets a new limit for melee range, 10 feet instead of 5 feet.
Normally, if a target adjacent to you moves away without Disengaging (or using some other means of escape that avoids OA's), you may use your reaction to attack it. If you have a reach weapon, you now have two opportunities to do this instead of one: either when it moves away from adjacent to you, or when it attempts to move further away. Only one or the other, though.
As far as an unarmed attack goes: if you're armed with a reach weapon, you can opt to use an unarmed attack (kick or punch) as an opportunity attack, but only when the target is moving away from adjacent to you. If you wish to make your OA when the target is already 5 feet away, you have to use your polearm's reach. I'm not sure why you would ever use an unarmed attack instead of your melee weapon to make an OA, but you can do it if you want. You can do it with a normal weapon too for that matter, if kicking a fleeing goblin is more satisfying that chopping it with your sword.
Again: reach is a beneficial quality to a weapon. It does not set a new minimum distance at which you can attack, or react; it improves on the baseline. If you are fortunate enough to have multiple options for reach available to you, as a polearm fighter or as an adult dragon, you become a more effective combatant, not less. |
| #522ChlorobutanalSep 24, 2014 21:15:00 | This is correct about "no mimimum distance" for attacks, but due to the nature of the 5e OA rules, reach necessarily changes the distance at which one can take an OA.
OAs are only provoked at the boundary between "within reach" and "outside of reach." A medium human wielding a polearm has a 10' reach with polearm attacks, and never a 5' reach with them, therefore no polearm OAs when a creature crosses the 5' boundary. It's debatable as to whether the (polearm-wielding) human can take a non-polearm OA when somebody crosses that boundary (such as an unarmed strike), but it by the rules cannot be a reach polearm attack.
I'm inclined to think that a polearm-wielding human could make an unarmed OA if he or she wanted to do so, instead of a polearm one, but having effectively 2 reaches complicates matters. Regardless, the human cannot use Polearm Master to make an OA with an unarmed strike and that same human cannot use his or her "unarmed reach" of 5' to gauge polearm OAs. |
| #53DireachSep 24, 2014 21:32:31 | I see your point, 2C. I still believe the intent is to increase options, not limit them, and that a polearm OA against an adjacent target moving 5' away would be legal. A polearm can attack a target that is adjacent, or one that is 10 feet way, so it makes sense (at least to me) that you could also make OA's against those targets.
Whichever way it is, this looks like another case of "eh, they'll figure out what we meant" on the part of the designers. |
| #542ChlorobutanalSep 24, 2014 21:36:36 | I believe the reason for a stricter limit on reach OAs in 5e stems from 3e, where the spiked chain (the only weapon to attack like a 5e reach weapon) was by far the best weapon for battlefield control due in large part to the fact that it could take OAs at 5' or 10'.
To combat this, 4e had no reach OAs. 5e has revised the rules a bit and decided that reach OAs are okay, but they aren't strictly "twice as good" as non-reach OAs- the reach weapon "donut hole of safety" now exists for OAs, but doesn't limit the polearm-wielder from attacking adjacent people with regular "on-the-turn" attacks. |
| #55DireachSep 24, 2014 21:45:10 | I can certainly see it being ruled either way. |
| #56TimboramaSep 25, 2014 6:02:11 |
|
| (Reply to #50)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #56)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #54)FrogReaver |
|
| #60YunruSep 25, 2014 10:09:19 | But totally allows triple posts right? 'Cause the edit button doesn't exist. |
| (Reply to #60)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #57)SteveMND |
|
| (Reply to #59)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #64RCanineSep 26, 2014 2:28:22 |
|
| (Reply to #63)FrogReaver |
|
| #662ChlorobutanalSep 26, 2014 3:11:19 | Mostly because it's the one endorsed currently by the developers. Also, it's more interesting to have different reach values in the game to me than (almost) always 5' for PCs. |
| (Reply to #66)FrogReaver |
|
| #68RCanineSep 26, 2014 3:31:53 |
|
| #69NovacatSep 26, 2014 3:33:28 |
|
| #70RCanineSep 26, 2014 9:04:39 |
|
| #71nightwalker450Sep 26, 2014 10:25:18 |
|
| #72JohnnyBlaiseSep 26, 2014 10:53:24 | Wow this whole thing could not be more cloudy.
If I have polearm master, any normal person would say, when a monster moves within 10' of me, I can hit it with a glaive. When it moves adjacent to me, I can hit it with a staff. If I have Sentinel as well, the moster actually never reaches 10' - it gets stopped in the 15' square (interrupting the movement into the 10' square).
Cloudiness starts when we try to deny that warcaster can combo off of this. See above re: no one ever defining the word "wield". The common sense use of "wield" is, "have available for immediate use". So it shouldnt matter if you have a staff or a glaive, either one should be able to trigger a cantrip. It should matter if you are "using the glaive to attack" just that you have it available for use (ie not in your pack).
Following that logic, there is still a donut hole problem. Unlike previous editions, a glaive threatens at 5' and 10'. The language regarding, "you cannot threaten adjacent squares" has been conspicuosly removed. So you threaten at 5' and 10'. Technically, a creature doesn't leave your threatened area until it tries to go from 10 to 15. But if it is weapon specific, and you are for example a monk with a glaive, the creature is leaving the range of you fist when he moves to 10'. So a fist attack makes some sense. But a glaive attack would not.
So going back to Warcaster, you do have your glaive "weilded" (check) and a creature is provoking from you when he leaves your fist's range (check) so you would get a cantrip at 10' not 15'. Similarly, if you were triggering off of "enterring a square within your reach" the 10' square would be such a square, provoking if you were a polearm master. But you would be casting a cantrip while still adjacent to someone at that point, thus incurring disadvantage on the attack roll. Really bizarre. |
| #73RCanineSep 26, 2014 12:30:07 |
|
| #74Plaguescarred1Sep 26, 2014 12:37:56 |
|
| (Reply to #74)RCanine |
|
| #76Plaguescarred1Sep 26, 2014 12:48:04 | Since my first read i have interpreted reach weapon rules to only add reach when you attack with them, which you aren't doing when an OA is provoked.
I also think Polearm Master interrupt movement, just like a regular OA, which means a quaterstaff doesn't work with it as written. |
| (Reply to #75)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #74)nightwalker450 |
|
| (Reply to #76)FrogReaver |
|
| #80RCanineSep 26, 2014 12:52:50 |
|
| #81GentlemanLoserSep 26, 2014 12:54:09 | Can I go back to the Unarmed side of the question for a minute.
As an Unarmed Strike isn't a Light weapon, you couldn't usually make an off hand attack (potentially why Monks get a free Bonus unarmed attack anyway).
But if you had the Dual Wielder Talent, and were using just a 1 Hand weapon, could you then use a Bonus action to make an off hand Unarmed Strike (which being a simple weapon most classes are proficient with)?
If so, as you are always 'unarmed' and therefore always armed with an unarmed strike, how does this interact with things like the Dueling Fighting Style?
|
| (Reply to #81)FrogReaver |
|
| (Reply to #70)FrogReaver |
|
| #84RCanineSep 26, 2014 17:16:39 |
|
| #85UndrhilSep 27, 2014 10:57:25 | So, wait. I thought weapons with the Reach keyword only applied that reach on your attack. How are you getting a 10' OA with a Halberd? |
| #86RCanineSep 27, 2014 11:15:35 |
|
| #87Plaguescarred1Sep 27, 2014 12:28:40 | One interpretation for it is that reach is "the distance at which you can make melee attacks", so when OA let you attack a creature leaving your reach, it basically refers to "the distance at which you can make melee attacks" |
| (Reply to #86)SteveMND |
|