There is the Cutlass of Awareness.....

In reply to Damen Iourdanos (msg # 9):

Yes, but no one told the new folks (including Raddik) about it yet. So what is about to happen will come as a complete surprise.

You wouldn't want me to spoil it ahead of time, would you? :-)

Of course I would.  Anything to give us an advantage over whatever craziness we have to face next.

In reply to Damen Iourdanos (msg # 11):

Ok, let's put it another way: I don't like metagaming.

The whole point of private threads and not posting to IC during combat is so that folks dont' suddenly know what they don't know.

Which they do now, because you needed to post it OOC, but not IC at any point.

Sorry for the late posting,  got hung up at the dealership getting my airbag recalled and replaced.

I'll get out the establishing move shortly.

OK, the establishing round is posted. You all sprang awake, as if by magic, and can see boarders boarding. No surprise, and you can all act on your initiatives next round.

The Boarders initiative will be posted when they act.

Send in all Actions, Bonus Actions, Movement, Potential Reactions, etc, and all die rolls related there to, to your private threads by Noon tomorrow please.

Also let me know if there is NOT a private line telling you what you see on deck in the IC thread, please. I'm experimenting with group private lines by position, which means they change with each posting, potentially. I'd hate to leave someone out.

Game map, of sorts, posted. Basically the modified from of the keelboat.

Who is sleeping in which bunk is somewhere in The Ship thread. #3, I think.

I"m going to ush the move to tomorrow. I'm not feeling at all wella nd I'm having problems focusing. Hopefully a night's sleep will fix it.

Hopefully you feel better tomorrow.

Ok, no problem. Shitty day here as well. Tomorrow then.

How about this, DM:  if a ranged weaponnisjused as annimprovised melee weapon (or a melee weapon as an improvised ranged weapon), a roll to strike of Natural 1 means it breaks and is useless for both purposes.  Well, maybe as a club....

In reply to Damen Iourdanos (msg # 19):

Nah, standard improvised is fine. The issue is folks wanting to fire bows at melee range. The rules don't allow for it, but no one seems to realize that. I'm told I'm house ruling by enforcing what clearly seems to be RAW to me. It's... jarring.

The rules are really simplified in places in 5e. This is one of them. I put in 3 relevant passages on Ranged Attacks, and pointed to one on Melee Attacks. I put it in when I copied the post to the Master Setting pages.

Mind you, I'm not imposing penalties for firing into crowds, other than basic Cover rules. You folks do it way too much, but I'm not going to put an arrow into a friends back on a near miss due to cover.

Also, I'm inclined to treat spells as Reach Attacks, because they are, basically. Well, unless they require a touch. Things get fuzzy with magic, and the same hands are casting Burning Hands as Fireball. THAT may well be a house rule, but it's one that benefits players.

I still like the Natural 1 breaking it.  It reminds the player that a longbow wasn't mwant fornuse as a quarterstaff, no matter how much it can seem like one when it is unstrung.  Though, I think there was a Hercules film where an Amozonian archer had blades mounted on the tips of her bow for the express purpose of using it melee.

"Distance" is not a word that's defined by the rules. A distance of 5 feet is still a distance. The first sentence under "Range" in the "Ranged Attacks" section says "You can make ranged attacks only against targets within a specified range." The only range that is specified is the maximum ranges. Nowhere is a minimum range specified, so a "distance" of 1 inch is still "within a specified range" of all ranged weapons.

All of the rules you quoted are intentionally vague because all ranged weapons/spells have varying ranges which prevented them from being specific as to how far. The specifics depend on the source of the ranged attack, and looking up the definition of range you get my quote above "within a specified range". If you couldn't use it within 5 feet, I think they would have said "more than 5 feet away from you" rather than "at a distance". They chose to be vague because the variations in range require it, not because you can't use them up close.

I disagree that it is RAW because nowhere is a minimum range written, and the rules of range only state within range, which 5 ft is. If you don't think you can get shot by a crossbow from 5 feet away...I don't know what to tell you. Ever heard of someone getting shot point-blank? You might be harder to hit because you can try to deflect the weapon (disadvantage), but I can absolutely still shoot you with it.

If you want that to be how it's played in your world, it's your game and you have that power. I'm not arguing against you making the ruling, even though I disagree with it. I am arguing against your claim that it is RAW, however. Honestly, I don't even think it's RAI (it's certainly not RAF).

Is swapping to a melee weapon a big deal? No, not really. And that's why I don't really care if you choose to rule it that way. What is gained by doing that, though? You get to penalize ranged characters even more? They're already getting Disadvantage on all of their attacks by RAW unless they spend a Feat to bypass it.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:53, Fri 11 June 2021.

I should have included the 4th quote:

Also page 195: "Melee Attacks"


Melee is "reach". Ranged is "at range". That quote is already there.

"Distance" is NOT "reach" from what I can tell of the rules.

I understand folks disagree with me. That doesn't make me wrong. Nor am I going to change how I read things unless someone can come up with something definitive. A differing opinion is just that: A differing opinion.

In my opinion the RAW is clear enough. I understand it's not popular with some of the folks that selected Ranged Fighting Styles.  But Ranged Fighting Styles aren't meant for Melee. It's in the name.

I have to agree with the DM on this one.  In general, crossbows and bows are not designed for melee combat, where strings can be cut or the bow arms can be shattered, nor are arrows which are really too flimsy to be forced through armor by hand; arrows and bolts back then did tend to break.  Archers and crossbowmen were also taught to keep a distance, since that is how their weapons were intended to be used.  Ranged combatants were, and are, generally uncomfortable in melee/close quarters combat, unless specifically trained.
There is a video that shows this very well, an incident that happened in real life when four Honduran police officers,with guns drawn, tried to arrest an angry man with a knife.  I could link it here, but it is graphic. The first officer was struck in the throat, staggered to the side, fell, and bled out.  Not one of the cops made it unscathed, and the whole encounter took two minutes before the knife-wielding maniac was killed by gun fire.  In fact, it took about 16 seconds before any of the cops could get a shot off.
The general rule is that at 21 feet or closer, you can not draw and fire your weapon before a knife wielder would end you.  And I proved this against a soldier armed with a M16 in a training exercise.  And he had the rifle in hand.
Believe me, unless you are actually specifically trained for it, using a ranged weapon in melee combat is a bad idea. This RAW is based in reality.

Also, for the record Disadvantage is equivalent to a -5. Improvised weapons are a -3 at this level (basically, the value of your Prof bonus).

Yes, this means you don't get our Ranged specials in Melee. You don't get your melee specials at Range, either. It balances out.

Then why does this passage exist at all?

This passage 100% indicates that being within 5' of an opponent who is able to see you/threaten you/etc. does NOT prevent you from making a ranged attack, no matter who the target is.

Being "generally uncomfortable" in melee combat makes sense: that's why the disadvantage on attack rolls, but being UNABLE to fire ranged weapons into melee is not RAW, it is a HARD NERF house rule on ranged weapons.

Not really.  Even in reality, someone armed with  melee weapon within 21 feet of someone armed with a gun is likely to defeat the gun wilder before they have a chance to even brjng up their weapon.  People have little idea how fast a human wanting to do harm can and will move in order to accomplish that task.  It's not a nerf rule.  It is actually based on reality.
https://www.personaldefensewor...019/06/knife-vs-gun/

In reply to Damen Iourdanos (msg # 27):

All of your arguments support the ranged person being at disadvantage, not at the ranged person being unable to use the ranged weapon at all.

Yes. AN  OPPPONENT. ANY opponent. This does not say that ranged weapons can be used at melee, just that an enemy, not necessarily the target, will interfere with with any attempt at ranged combat.

The definitions of melee and ranged I references say that the target is in melee if within Reach. NOT ranged.

And the fact that you don't want to see the RAW doesn't mean it isn't there.

Also, Hersten, about that Fighting Style you wanted to change? Thieves don't have Fighting Styles, so I'm not sure what you were referring to.
This message was last edited by the GM at 14:33, Fri 11 June 2021.

This is getting xhausting, and my health still isn't 100%.

Whether you accept that it is RAW or insist that it is House rule (regardless of evidence to the contrary or hairsplitting semantics)) doesn't matter. It's the rule. It's not changing.

The discussion is over. Take the weekend, post to me if you are accepting the ruling or withdrawing. If accepting, modify your move, if needed, to reflect. if withdrawing, be kind enough to let us know.

I'll update the move Monday.

Well, I have only heard form about 4 of you, so I'll just post the move and see who responds with round 2.

My posting may be spotty this week. Issues that could be the result of my heart condition, one of the meds I take for it, or a trace elemnet deficiency have been troubling me for a couple weeks and are getting worse. The safe bet is the deficiency, which could take a couple days to reverse after I start taking supplements, so I may not be in shape to update every day this week. And if that isn't it, well then , I may not be in shape to post every day next week, either.

Sorry.

Update posting shortly, as I get it done

OK, posted. Things are crowded enough that most (not all) of you may have disadvantage with missiles.

Remember those spare rolls. If I don't have what I need to fill in with, I'll roll them myself.

I've set the die roller for private rolls for a reason. Please don't uncheck that box.

Let's try for tomorrow noon

Sorry that you're still not feeling well. Get better soon! And don't worry about the game.