D&D 5E Ranged Attacks in Close Combat

[CapnZapp]

Suddenly, I got thinking - what if I have run this wrong all this time?

I've run the game allowing heroes to shoot at the Orc that's waving a pointy stick in their face, albeit at disadvantage.

But let's look at what the rules actually say... could it be that all this time, you simply cannot make a ranged attack at an adjacent target?

[QUOTE="PHB page 146]Every weapon is classified
as either melee or ranged. A melee weapon is used to
attack a target within 5 feet of you, whereas a ranged
weapon is used to attack a target at a distance.[/QUOTE]
This certainly doesn't argue against this.

(There is no errata pertaining to page 146)

Okay, so what does the Combat chapter say?
[QUOTE="PHB page 195]Aiming a ranged attack is more difficult when a foe
is next to you. When you make a ranged attack with
a weapon, a spell, or some other means, you have
disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet
o f a hostile creature who can see you and w ho isn’t
incapacitated.[/QUOTE]
Note how this never specifies whether you're shooting at the adjacent foe that's bothering your shot.

(There is errata for page 195, but it's about unarmed attacks)

But what about Crossbow Expert - the feat (in)famous for removing the penalty for shooting in melee?

Being within 5 feet o f a hostile creature doesn’t
impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.

Again it doesn't talk about who you're shooting at.

Could it be that the rules allow for the following reading:

HX______Y

H = Hero (player character)
X and Y = Monsters

The rules clearly specify that in this situation you have disadvantage on ranged attacks, because you're within 5 feet of hostile monster X.

So when you want to fire at monster Y, you have disadvantage, and that's that.

But what about firing at monster X. Can you do it at all?

The rules for ranged weaponry clearly state they're used to attack a target "at a distance", and a reasonable reading of page 146 is to contrast that to melee weapons "used to attack a target within 5 feet of you".

Could we read that to mean you cannot attack targets within 5 feet of you using a ranged weapon?

That is, you don't get disadvantage on shooting X - it's impossible. Crossbow Expert might lift the disadvantage, but it's still impossible to shoot monster X!

(You can shoot monster Y, but not monster X)

You could of course take a step back and shoot at X from a distance of 10 feet with no disadvantage either with or without the feat, but you would crucially have to eat an opportunity attack to do so, assuming X lacks reach. (While this is rather beside the issue, I wanted to at least mention it)

What do you say?

Please note I'm not trying to make you change your reading of the rules. I'm not trying to argue this is the only way to play the game. I'm not trying to make the way I have played the game into badwrongfun, and I am not trying to make you change the way you play your game.

I am merely asking you if you feel this is a reasonable (alternate) reading of the rules?

 

[CapnZapp]

Let me add I do have read the Sage Advice on feats.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats/

Again the text is crafted to avoid saying one thing or the other. Whether this is intentional or coincidental I cannot say.

Is it intentional that the second benefit of Crossbow Expert helps ranged spell attacks? Yes, it’s intentional. When you make a ranged attack roll within 5 feet of an enemy, you normally suffer disadvantage (PH, 195). The second benefit of Crossbow Expert prevents you from suffering that disadvantage, whether or not the ranged attack is with a crossbow.

Again, it doesn't state outright it talks about attacks at the same enemy you're within 5 feet of.

 

[bgbarcus]

I could accept either reading.

Thinking about ranged weapons, it makes sense that attacks against adjacent opponents could be ineffective. Picture yourself throwing a dagger at someone an arm's length away. OTOH, spells against adjacent targets don't feel like they would have the same mechanical problems.

If I were to adopt your suggested reading of the rules, I'd probably look at each weapon to determine if adjacent ranged attacks are possible and add a weapon attribute to define the capability if I found some that needed it.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using EN World mobile app

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If you want to go that route, you should note the difference in the syntax of the weapon/attack type.
So you couldn't used a ranged weapon (eg bow or crossbow) to shoot an adjacent target, but you could make a ranged attack such as with a thrown melee weapon or a spell.

 

[cmad1977]

I'd be fine with being unable to use a ranged weapon in close range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

If you want to go that route, you should note the difference in the syntax of the weapon/attack type.
So you couldn't used a ranged weapon (eg bow or crossbow) to shoot an adjacent target, but you could make a ranged attack such as with a thrown melee weapon or a spell.

I'd be fine with being unable to use a ranged weapon in close range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks but what do you say about my question - is my interpretation of the RAW reasonable, or does it fall on some unforeseen technicality I have missed?

I mean, I'm not so much actually going a particular route, as asking if that route is signposted or if you consider it entirely homebrewed? (Okay so that analogy wasn't perhaps the best)

 

[cmad1977]

Thanks but what do you say about my question - is my interpretation of the RAW reasonable, or does it fall on some unforeseen technicality I have missed?

I mean, I'm not so much actually going a particular route, as asking if that route is signposted or if you consider it entirely homebrewed? (Okay so that analogy wasn't perhaps the best)

I haven't passed the RPG bar exam. All I can do is give it the sniff test. From what you posted it smells ok to me. If I have a second today I'll give my PHB a whiff and see if I find something rancid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

So you couldn't used a ranged weapon (eg bow or crossbow) to shoot an adjacent target, but you could make a ranged attack such as with a thrown melee weapon or a spell.

That can be argued makes sense. (Not saying it must make sense, just that it could)

A dart or spell or throwing star is more like a pistol than a rifle, and the rule (if interpreted this way) is more concerned about allowing the enemy to swat aside a rifle pointing at it...

 

[CapnZapp]

I haven't passed the RPG bar exam. All I can do is give it the sniff test. From what you posted it smells ok to me. If I have a second today I'll give my PHB a whiff and see if I find something rancid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you.

 

[kbrakke]

The lack of certainty in the wording "Make attacks at a distance" makes me hesitant to assert strongly that they must be beyond 5 ft from you. As my best evidence I present the last to paragraphs of the "Range" entry
"The first is the weapon’s normal range in feet, and the second indicates the weapon’s maximum range. When attacking a target beyond normal range, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. You can’t attack a target beyond the weapon’s long range." - PHB p. 147
Given how strongly they state that you cannot attack creatures beyond the maximum range, I would expect that they would state "When making a ranged attack you cannot attack creatures within 5 feet of you." if that is what they meant. Given 0 feet away falls within the first range band of all ranged weapons I don't see compelling evidence to prohibit making ranged attack rolls against creatures within that range.

My summation is; You can read "at a distance" as a contrast to "Within five feet", but it is not a strongly worded as I would expect if that were the case. If I were writing that section to mean that I would simply say "a ranged weapon is used to make an attack against a target more than five feet away from you". Also they describe what range means, and at no point indicate that the range does not include the five feet in front of you.

Also from a perspective in playing the game I wouldn't understand the decision to prevent this. I don't imagine bows being constructed in such a way as to literally prevent you from firing them at people adjacent to you. Same with spells. I can accept it being harder to aim when someone is distracting you, but not literally impossible to use.