Am I missing a rule? Do you not get a reaction when someone cast a spell arms reach of you?

 


I know the devs want to simplify AoO. I assumed it was still in the reaction rules. I’m experimenting with defensive combat rules and this would kill the ability to back up and use reach and counters while fighting a caster. Yes I know that’s a terrible tactic against a Wizard but what if it’s a high lvl ranger that could yell for a Rhino or a stubby Monk with cleric spells?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kex7tp7536Y

New 5e Playtest review


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

You do not get a reaction when someone casts a spell within an arm's reach of you, no.

Danny

Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.
Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.




Yeah, I have a problem with this, especially with Lance of Faith.  Why does a cleric even get weapon proficiencies, when he can use this cantrip in melee with a better chance to hit?
Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.




Yeah, I have a problem with this, especially with Lance of Faith.  Why does a cleric even get weapon proficiencies, when he can use this cantrip in melee with a better chance to hit?


you mean that one cantrip that he only gets to choose one of, ONE, that not all clerics will choose because they have other options?

There is a reason to use a weapon in melee when you have lance of faith. Using lance of faith in melee range imposes disadvantage. Any spell that does not require an attack roll, however, can be used in melee with no penalty. And, that is a bit of a problem...

I'd like to see a cantrip that has a concentration aspect. the cantrip increases your melee combat capabilities takes an action to cast then must be maintained via concentration.  Just seems like something a cleric of the warbringer should have.  Call it the battle prayer have it give a bonus to damage and a bonus to attack rolls.  For those that wish to play the melee cleric.

There is a reason to use a weapon in melee when you have lance of faith. Using lance of faith in melee range imposes disadvantage. Any spell that does not require an attack roll, however, can be used in melee with no penalty. And, that is a bit of a problem...





I see no problem with that.  I like that casters don't have to sit there and do nothing when they get closed on and can still be useful even if something is in melee with them.

There is a reason to use a weapon in melee when you have lance of faith. Using lance of faith in melee range imposes disadvantage. Any spell that does not require an attack roll, however, can be used in melee with no penalty. And, that is a bit of a problem...





I see no problem with that.  I like that casters don't have to sit there and do nothing when they get closed on and can still be useful even if something is in melee with them.



I would rather they be forced to use melee range touch spells in melee instead of casting ranged attacks with impunity. But to each their own. In any case, this is not a deal breaker for me either way. I won't bat an eyelash no matter what. 


I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.




The saving throw for hold person is about as liberal as we are going to get. You get a save every round and the caster has to keep concentration. The fix is in the description of Reaction. It can work off a trigger. I figure casting or lighting a Molotov cocktail works as a trigger. We should not have to declare it and there needs to be a real chance at spell disruption and/or failure depending on if the caster uses components or however their magic works.







you mean that one cantrip that he only gets to choose one of, ONE, that not all clerics will choose because they have other options?



The 'one' part makes it worse.

I see no problem with that.  I like that casters don't have to sit there and do nothing when they get closed on and can still be useful even if something is in melee with them.






This isn’t a puny 35 pound Halfling mage this is a D&D cleric with armor and weapons that was given a laser gun at first level. That really tramps on the mysticism of magic. I remember casting a light spell in Oblivion and being blown away by the graphics. That’s not good enough for a first level character in Next? Do they really need a laser gun to impress?

Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.



Thats okay, the fighter has over 400% more hp, he can survive being held and still kill the weak little 9 Con wizard in a single hit.  Isn't that what you were saying all through your Con/hp thread?
Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.



Thats okay, the fighter has over 400% more hp, he can survive being held and still kill the weak little 9 Con wizard in a single hit.  Isn't that what you were saying all through your Con/hp thread?



So we have Mr Dwarf fighter Who starts with 20 con and toughness who has 18 HP compared to a 10 Con wizard with 6 HP. The wizard sleeps the fighter then slits his throat. So yes the fighter can have a ton more HP than the wizard and still be 1 shot. Wooohooo!!!! Thats some good game design.
  
Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.




Yeah, I have a problem with this, especially with Lance of Faith.  Why does a cleric even get weapon proficiencies, when he can use this cantrip in melee with a better chance to hit?


you mean that one cantrip that he only gets to choose one of, ONE, that not all clerics will choose because they have other options?



First of all, clerics get at least TWO cantrips, and that before taking a feat that will give them two more.  Second, one player in my group who made a cleric said that Lance was the obvious choice when he made a cleric.  I made a cleric without it, but then again, she's for a more role-playing type game than a dungeon crawl type.

There is a reason to use a weapon in melee when you have lance of faith. Using lance of faith in melee range imposes disadvantage. Any spell that does not require an attack roll, however, can be used in melee with no penalty. And, that is a bit of a problem...




Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find anywhere in the rules that ranged weapons or spells used in melee get disadvantage.  Can anyone tell me where to find that?


EDIT:  My group decided to apply disadvantage, but we couldn't find it in the rules.
The main problem with allowing spellcasts in melee is that it just messes up the feeling of immersion...

There is a reason to use a weapon in melee when you have lance of faith. Using lance of faith in melee range imposes disadvantage. Any spell that does not require an attack roll, however, can be used in melee with no penalty. And, that is a bit of a problem...




Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find anywhere in the rules that ranged weapons or spells used in melee get disadvantage.  Can anyone tell me where to find that?


EDIT:  My group decided to apply disadvantage, but we couldn't find it in the rules.



It is no longer in the rules and (I believe) was removed with the October packet.



I believe the feeling was that with the addition of OAs for movement (and the lack of any way to withdraw from combat as part of a move action) it was too limiting on casters.


In the last couple editions - if you were adjacent to an enemy you could five-foot-step or shift back and attack.  In 5E you do not have that option (Disengage requires an action) and thus a ranged character had too few options when faced with an adjacent attacker.


And in a game without strict grid rules - what, really, is the difference between "two targets are adjacent; target one takes a step back (to avoid the OA) and attacks, target two takes a step forward to close the distance."


Removing the five foot steps is just a way to simplify the game where most characters will (at least until backed into the wall) be able to avoid the OA anyway.


Carl

There is a reason to use a weapon in melee when you have lance of faith. Using lance of faith in melee range imposes disadvantage. Any spell that does not require an attack roll, however, can be used in melee with no penalty. And, that is a bit of a problem...




Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find anywhere in the rules that ranged weapons or spells used in melee get disadvantage.  Can anyone tell me where to find that?


EDIT:  My group decided to apply disadvantage, but we couldn't find it in the rules.



It is no longer in the rules and (I believe) was removed with the October packet.



I believe the feeling was that with the addition of OAs for movement (and the lack of any way to withdraw from combat as part of a move action) it was too limiting on casters.


In the last couple editions - if you were adjacent to an enemy you could five-foot-step or shift back and attack.  In 5E you do not have that option (Disengage requires an action) and thus a ranged character had too few options when faced with an adjacent attacker.


And in a game without strict grid rules - what, really, is the difference between "two targets are adjacent; target one takes a step back (to avoid the OA) and attacks, target two takes a step forward to close the distance."


Removing the five foot steps is just a way to simplify the game where most characters will (at least until backed into the wall) be able to avoid the OA anyway.


Carl



Yeah, I get that.  I hated the five-foot-step-back-and-fire tactic, though I used it; it just felt wrong.  So do ranged attacks when engaged in melee.  With no penalty, the only reason for casters to have weapon proficiencies is when they're in some kind of anti-magic area.
The way I would do it would probably be something like:



1)  If there is only one enemy adjacent to you, you can make ranged attacks versus that target with impunity (you have room to maneuver around/ step back a bit).


2) In all other cases, you must make your attack with disadvantage.

Rationale: 
If there is only one enemy adjacent to you and you are attacking someone on the other side of that enemy, that enemy has  3/4 cover.  But rather than deal with the cover rules, this is abstracted to disadvantage.
If there is only one enemy adjacent to you, and you are attacking a creature that is not on the other side of that enemy, you have to make a rushed shot while keeping your attention on the adjacent enemy - this puts your shot at a disadvantage.
If here are multiple enemies adjacent to you, you lack the ability to maneuver and have to make a rushed shot, and thus your shot is at a disadvantage.


Carl          


   
Yeah, I get that.  I hated the five-foot-step-back-and-fire tactic, though I used it; it just felt wrong.  So do ranged attacks when engaged in melee.  With no penalty, the only reason for casters to have weapon proficiencies is when they're in some kind of anti-magic area.



I would like to see a 5 step back work in melee first.


The main problem with allowing spellcasts in melee is that it just messes up the feeling of immersion...




 


youtu.be/cbfAaq3Em2A

Worked here. The problem is casters are made to only cast spells and that is it. So we would never see them wrestling over a wand and ending the grapple with a punch combo, followed up by a counter choke and a fein dead.

I see where touch attack spells may be cast against an enemy in a threatened square without drawing threat...all fine and good as that particular spell is more of an attack than well...a spell. However, casting spells on any OTHER target should elicit and attack of opportunity by enemies in adjacent squares. I believe that firing a ranged weapon in melee range should also elicit an opportunity attack by enemies within adjacent squares. IMHO
8.8 My House Rules! (roll the d20) *click to roll*8.8
I agree that casting a spell should provoke an opportunity attack unless it's a touch spell.

Looking at the rules, it seems people only ever provoke OA anymore by leaving a threatened square. Hmm. I don't like that at all, but I assume there will be better OA rules in the tactical rules module.
Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.



Yep, magic doesn't need any skill, apparently. It just 'happens."

Spells 1, Martial 0.


Yep, magic doesn't need any skill, apparently. It just 'happens."

Spells 1, Martial 0.



This is a bit disingenuous. Weapon attacks don't offer saving throws, either.

Spells 1, Martial 1.
I agree that casting a spell should provoke an opportunity attack unless it's a touch spell.

Looking at the rules, it seems people only ever provoke OA anymore by leaving a threatened square. Hmm. I don't like that at all, but I assume there will be better OA rules in the tactical rules module.



Leaving a threatened square does not provoke either.



You only provoke by leaving the targets reach.   You can run in circles around him without provoking.




Carl    

Leaving a threatened square does not provoke either.



You only provoke by leaving the targets reach.   You can run in circles around him without provoking.



That makes sense.
Yep, magic doesn't need any skill, apparently. It just 'happens."

Spells 1, Martial 0.



This is a bit disingenuous. Weapon attacks don't offer saving throws, either.

Spells 1, Martial 1.



Magic missile is auto hit. Is there an autohit maneuver? A player can also magic missile (or any other ranged spell)at point blank range with no problem, but would take a penalty to ranged weapon attacks.
Magic missile is auto hit. Is there an autohit maneuver? A player can also magic missile (or any other ranged spell)at point blank range with no problem, but would take a penalty to ranged weapon attacks.



Congratulations, you managed to find the ONE spell in the game that does that. You totally win the argument! Wink

And yes, Magic Missile needs to be nerfed.
Magic Missile is not an autohit since it doesn't hit at all. Hitting requires an Attack roll vs AC, which Magic Missile lalck. Its rather an autodamage spell, like most damaging spells granting a save for half. 
Yep, magic doesn't need any skill, apparently. It just 'happens."

Spells 1, Martial 0.



This is a bit disingenuous. Weapon attacks don't offer saving throws, either.

Spells 1, Martial 1.



Magic missile is auto hit. Is there an autohit maneuver? A player can also magic missile (or any other ranged spell)at point blank range with no problem, but would take a penalty to ranged weapon attacks.



Glancing Blow

Bull Rush



Yes - there are autohit maneuvers.


Carl       


Glancing Blow

Bull Rush



Yes - there are autohit maneuvers.


Carl       



I stand corrected.
Sorry for derailing the thread.


Magic missile is auto hit. Is there an autohit maneuver? A player can also magic missile (or any other ranged spell)at point blank range with no problem, but would take a penalty to ranged weapon attacks.



It's also automiss, if the target has a shield spell.  It's also weaker in any AOE situation that the typical AOE spell options.  However, if it's notable for being the highest single target average damage, mostly due to lack of a saving throw.  Maybe it will get nerfed.
Worse yet, unlike using a ranged weapon in melee (you suffer disadvantage) you can cast a spell in melee no problem. 

What's that? A fighter is in your face about to ruin your day. Lol. Hold Person. Lol.

I blame the silly design of using "saving throws" instead of a streamlined attack vs defense mechanic.



At least they could give the threatening target advantage on the Saving Throw?
I know it doesn't make sense the same way but at least it would give a semblance of consistency and would make close spells meaningful.
the reason those things no longer provoke is that they are getting away from the grid system and no longer need it for the rules. if you want to use them make house rules problem solved
the reason those things no longer provoke is that they are getting away from the grid system and no longer need it for the rules. if you want to use them make house rules problem solved



Why do we still have disadvantage for ranged weapon being fired in melee then?
You don't need a grid to adjudicate this, just a state: engaged/disengaged. Pretty easy to adjudicate in ToTM as well.   

   
well firing into meele where party members are mixed with eneimies should be with a negative to hit as you are creating friendly fire
well firing into meele where party members are mixed with eneimies should be with a negative to hit as you are creating friendly fire



I stand corrected: it looks like there is no disadvantage anymore for firing ranged weapons when engaged in melee. Can't say I like it but at least it's consistent. And hopefully the advanced rules will cover this too.
Yep, magic doesn't need any skill, apparently. It just 'happens."

Spells 1, Martial 0.



This is a bit disingenuous. Weapon attacks don't offer saving throws, either.

Spells 1, Martial 1.



Magic missile is auto hit. Is there an autohit maneuver? A player can also magic missile (or any other ranged spell)at point blank range with no problem, but would take a penalty to ranged weapon attacks.


Wasn't there a maneuver at one point that let you deal damage on a miss?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I see where touch attack spells may be cast against an enemy in a threatened square without drawing threat...all fine and good as that particular spell is more of an attack than well...a spell. However, casting spells on any OTHER target should elicit and attack of opportunity by enemies in adjacent squares. I believe that firing a ranged weapon in melee range should also elicit an opportunity attack by enemies within adjacent squares. IMHO

Then so should a melee attack, to any OTHER enemy, elicit an AoO by enemies in adjacent squares.

There is such a double standard when comparing spell attacks (which are usually quicker than most melee attacks - you're just saying the final word of the spell with a quick gesture) and melee attacks.

When attacking an opponent that is adjacent to the caster (regardless of whether the spell is ranged or touch), the attack should be treated as a melee attack in regards to Attacks of Opportunity. Now, if the somatic components of a spell indicate/require a gesture or movement that is expansive, similar to using a ranged weapon, then I would treat it as a ranged attack in regards to Attacks of Opportunity.

When attacking an opponent that isn't adjacent to the caster (implying that the spell is ranged), the attack should be treated as a ranged attack in regards to Attacks of Opportunity.

The difference between a ranged spell and a ranged weapon is that, to use ranged weapons, the ranged weapon requires some extra space to utilize (the space to pull back one arm, to throw a thrown weapon, or to pull the string, on a bow). Crossbows are a different scenario; if the crossbow is already loaded and cocked, the attack should be treated as a melee attack in regards to Attacks of Opportunity (it doesn't require the extra space, movement or time).

I just don't see why casting a spell, unless it requires a range of movement similar to using a ranged weapon, should elicit any more chance of an Attack of Opportunity than using a melee weapon; indeed, I would think it would elicit less of a chance of an Attack of Opportunity if it isn't a touch spell (a touch spell requires movement similar to a melee weapon attack).  
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this, but the devs have stated that Opportunity Attacks are intended only as a mechanic for attacking opponents that leave your reach, and are in fact strongly considering changing the name from Opportunity Attack to something that doesn't carry the mechanical baggage from past editions.  I rather like this idea because it clarifies things, and leaves an opening for "real" opportunity attacks to return as a separate mechanic along with the tactical rules module.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Sign In to post comments