Quote from: Opaopajr;815116With regards to OA or Polearm Mastery ending one's movement, to put it simply, you're wrong, he's right.

Yep. I realized that afterwards. Why I said he had some valid points. And the OP in that thread has had several which along with the help here has most certainly changed my viewpoint.

Ok. Still at it. Can anyone here make sense of this?

I think he is arguing simmilar to my own initial thought that Reach only applying to active attacking and that OA should not take that into account. Before his own arguments made me realize I was wrong. Least I THINK I was wrong?

My answer to the Warlock example is "Then dont take warcaster and weild a reach weapon?"

QuoteThorn Hall Thanks for trying, but I have accepted, that you are not have a OA with reachweapon. So I don't need speciel rule for that.

We have been around a lot, but the keypoint in this tread is. What give most meaning in 5e, when you use it with all the other rules in 5e. In this dissussion the main problem is the new way of how you tricker opportunity attack OA. There are to way to see you reach, when you looking for OA

1. you have and ongoing reach of 10 when you have a reach weapon in your hand. So you do not get a OA, when a opponent move from 5ft to 10 ft away. You get your OA if just before he tries to move from 10-15 ft.

2. you only have +5 reach (10 reach) WHEN you make your attack. So to check for OA it is only when a opponent leave from 5 ft to 10 ft away. You don't get it if he move from 10 ft away to 15 ft away.

We have use a lot of time to argue for both point. I can understand why you would see it from point 1. One of the big factors is, that our mindset is for that, because that how it works in 3.5. But it also create some problems. Let me give you a new problem I have not used before:

You are a warlock fighting with a reachweapon. You have a powerfull spell with the touch ability. You have taken the feat War Caster (page 170), so you can use the spell, if someone tries to run away. You then use the War Caster ability to cast a spell insted of a attack in your OA. But hey when you get the OA the opponent is 10 ft from you. You can no longer use your touch spell. Bad luck because you held your reach weapon...

I'd need to see War Caster feat cited why this matters. Also an explanation why Warlock matters, too. But already anyone can create two different Reaches. Yes, every. single. class.

First off, forget what you know from other editions. This helps immensely.

The concept of off-hand, doesn't exist. Class or race limits to holding a weapon in each hand, doesn't exist. Lack of weapon proficiency stopping you from wielding any weapon, doesn't exist.

Weapon Proficiency only adds your Prof Bonus; lacking it just lacks the bonus. Holding a weapon in each hand is allowed; you designate which you choose to attack with during your action, reaction, and maybe bonus action. And there is no off-hand designation, thus no penalty, thus no singular overriding reach if you have more than one reach value. Both reach values are active.

Whip is a one-handed reach weapon.
Lance, while mounted, is a one-handed reach weapon.

A wizard is mounted with a lance and a longsword. A hostile they can see is next to them. The hostile Moves without Disengage 20' away from the wizard. Leaving 5' to 10' the mounted wizard may choose to OA with her longsword. She chooses not to. Leaving 10' to 15' the mounted wizard may choose to OA with her lance (she has not used her Reaction, so OA is still available). She chooses to do so. She will OA with the lance, not adding her PB. If the hostile is still ready, they continue 10' more feet to finish the 20' move.

Quote from: Opaopajr;815207I'd need to see War Caster feat cited why this matters. Also an explanation why Warlock matters, too. But already anyone can create two different Reaches. Yes, every. single. class.

Warcaster feat: When someone provokes opportunity attack, instead of attacking with the weapon you can cast a spell on them instead  as long as the spell has a casting time of 1 and targets just that creature.

So combine that with Polearm master and you can tag people coming in at 10ft, but cannot tag them going out till 10ft and they can dance around all day at 9ft and never provoke opportunity.

That is part of the OP in the threads hang up. He is just short of freaking out that you have this huge reach weapon and its incurring a penalty by making it easier to bypass or evade them.

Basically He and I started out with the same viewpoint. With me a bit worse off than him even. But at every turn someone here or there showed me that my assumptions were wrong.

The realization of "The right tool for the right job." Dont use a reach weapon if you want better OA. Dont spend a round pouring poison on your weapon to attack a Skeleton whos immune to poison. Or like in older D&D where skeletons took half damage from piercing and slashing weapons. Use something blunt to bash them.

Or accept that there are drawbacks.

Here is the text of answer to this question on Stackexchange.

You can use your one reaction to execute an opportunity attack to attack with the dagger if the opponent steps out of 5 foot reach. Or the Whip if the opponent steps out of 10 feet reach. But you only get one or the other as you only get one reaction until after your next turn.

Since a whip is not a light weapon you can't use two-weapon fighting with a dagger.

But that only relevant to when you are taking your turn. The rule is limited to a grant of a bonus action to attack with the second light weapon. There is no rule prohibiting you from holding any combination of two one handed weapons. Without both of them being light you can only attack with one or the other with an attack option.

Also note that you only get one bonus action regardless of how many you could have.

In my opinion the main advantage of using two one-handed weapons without being able to use two-weapon fighting is to take advantage of some special property on one weapon versus the other. For example the use of a whip and a longsword. The whip has reach but less damage. So close in you use the longsword but if you need to attack an opponent further away you can attack with the whip. And it expands you flexibility in using a reaction for taking an opportunity attack.

Rules Details

From page 69 of the Players Rules for Basic D&D 5e.

QuoteYou can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.

From page 74 of the Players Rules for Basic D&D 5e.

QuoteWhen you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

and

QuoteYou 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.

From page 70 of the Players Rules for Basic D&D 5e.

QuoteWhen you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.

This some additional comments about the working of the Reach attribute for weapons.

From Page 147 of the PHB

QuoteReach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it.

Note that bolded part states when you attack with it. Not when you take the attack action with it.  While it could be written better I feel the intent that this distinction means that using a weapon with reach extends the area threatened by the wielder as well as the area in which he can execute a attack action or a bonus action involving an attack.

Moreso it my interpretation has the virtue of reflecting of how the situation would look if you are actually there witnessing the action.

I can't even tell what this debate is about. It's incoherent.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;815228I can't even tell what this debate is about. It's incoherent.

Welcome to the club.

For me it is gaining an understanding of why the various elements work. And eventually seeing it more and more clearly.

For the fellow in the thread that sparked this its spiraled further and further. We are now at the point hes trying say you can apply bows to gain Opportunity to 15ft.
Or that you can, while holding the bow, opt to punch someone as they leave your normal reach. Except the bow is two handed and you dont have a hand free to do that? And so on.
Or. Since you can punch them while holding your (usually 2 handed) reach weapon then that means the war caster can zap them.

And no it doesnt make any sense after a point. Especially over something that usually does not come up all that often. I can think of only one instance where anything has provoked Opportinity out the whole campaign I am DMing so far.

Next up the Circle of Moon Druid and exploding Spider Mad Bombers. I wish I were making any of this up... :banghead:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;815228I can't even tell what this debate is about. It's incoherent.

I'm loving 5e so far, but if the rules are this convoluted regarding weapon reach and attacks of opportunity... House Rules a' comin'!

Quote from: Necrozius;815231I'm loving 5e so far, but if the rules are this convoluted regarding weapon reach and attacks of opportunity... House Rules a' comin'!

Its not that convoluted. But one or two seem to make it out to be really convoluted by adding in instances that the rules allready prohibit.

Reach weapons add 5ft to your opportunity zone. Making it easier for things to move around inside your reach and not trigger opportunity. Because you are swinging around a long and usually cumbersome weapon. It makes sense in context.

I did learn one thing from this thread. Only one Attack of Opportunity per turn from each creature. The way I've been playing it so far is letting an AOO happen whenever anyone left range, regardless of the number done previously.

So if 6 players all run past 1 zombie in the same turn, that zombie would take a swipe at all of them. In fact I think I like that way better.

I don't really understand what the question with this polearm is though. It also makes me realize that a weapon that's usually supposed to not work in close range works fine in the rules... like if you have a lance that has a range of 20 feet and somebody gets within 5 feet of you, in real life and intuitively you'd think the lance user is now DOA unless he can get farther away. Because the end of the lance would be far past the enemy, and would be unweildy to use in close range.

But from what I understand, it would be just as good at 5 feet as it is at 20, right? In other words, it has no minimum range.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;815236But from what I understand, it would be just as good at 5 feet as it is at 20, right? In other words, it has no minimum range.

I thought the same about opportunity attacks and misread that they triggered every time. oops.

As for the lance. It has the "special" flag. If the enemy is 5ft or closer then the lance user is at disadvantage. And needs 2 hands when you are not mounted. IE: It makes a not very great melee weapon on foot. But sometimes you use whats on hand or just to show how badass you are by bonking people to death with a tent pole...

It's not about disadvantage though. If you have a lance and the enemy in hand to hand range, hitting him with the tip of it is just physically impossible.

Whenever a PC uses a weapon in a way that it was not intentionally designed, I use the stats for an Improvised Weapon and may change the damage type.

So using a 20-foot lance against a guy within 5 feet? Improvised weapon doing bludgeoning damage. Actually, because a 20-foot lance would be nearly impossible to use that close, it would be at a disadvantage as well.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;815243It's not about disadvantage though. If you have a lance and the enemy in hand to hand range, hitting him with the tip of it is just physically impossible.

Right. You smack them with it like a club. Or try to jocky and hustle around. Pretty crazy. But then you got into melee with a lance. Its like getting into melee with a bow.

But if you or the DM want to say, "no. cant use it like that." then go for it and stick to it.

Quote from: Omega;815249Right. You smack them with it like a club. Or try to jocky and hustle around. Pretty crazy. But then you got into melee with a lance. Its like getting into melee with a bow.

But if you or the DM want to say, "no. cant use it like that." then go for it and stick to it.

Melee with a bow is actually more plausible since I could at least imagine some Legolas style stuff.

Although it makes me wonder how fast someone with a bow could switch weapons to a sword or something if an enemy closes the gap into melee. Would that be a free action?