Timeline for Can you move between an attack and the attack granted by Horde Breaker?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13 at 20:30 | vote | accept | Tarod | ||
| Sep 10 at 11:54 | comment | added | Darth Pseudonym | I don't agree, I think it's just making a somewhat unnecessary reminder that your sword doesn't suddenly extend to go hit the guy over there. I mean I can see that argument happening at a table, so it doesn't seem all that unnecessary to me. | |
| Sep 10 at 6:06 | comment | added | Kirt | @DarthPseudonym No, I mean that when it says you can make an attack "against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon", the restriction on the target being within range of your weapon only makes sense if it is referencing "when you make a weapon attack". We don't need a special rule that the target of our 2nd attack has to be within range of our weapon when we make that attack because that can be assumed. We do need an explicit rule to tell us that the target of the 2nd attack had to have been within range of our 1st attack. | |
| Sep 9 at 18:49 | comment | added | Darth Pseudonym | You mean, why the restriction that the targets have to be adjacent rather than saying that you just attack two targets within reach? I would assume it's to enforce that this is an ability that you use against relatively weak, tightly packed targets rather than against a big monster or some such thing. | |
| Sep 9 at 16:10 | comment | added | Kirt | @DarthPseudonym As a DM, I would probably allow that, too. But it is not what the ability says RAW, as otherwise what is the purpose of the restriction? On the other hand, that second goblin is still within range of your ranged attacks, whether you move or not. | |
| Sep 9 at 16:07 | comment | added | Kirt | @matszwecja We shouldn't need an additional clause in an ability to tell us a rule that is already true. Why would we assume that you can suddenly attack an enemy out of your reach? Should (for example) Divine Smite have a clause that says you can only use it on a foe within your reach? | |
| Sep 9 at 15:38 | comment | added | Darth Pseudonym | Well, suppose you have a five foot wide passage with the ranger and two goblins standing in a line, like so: R-G-G. The backline goblin is a valid target, as he's within 5 feet of the first target, but he's not in the ranger's reach until the ranger takes a step forward (presumably over the goblin he just killed). I would definitely allow the ranger to move to make that attack happen. | |
| Sep 9 at 13:21 | comment | added | Honey Battery | It could be utilized to get around cover I suppose. | |
| Sep 9 at 12:14 | comment | added | Ryan C. Thompson | Interestingly, if the triggering attack isn't part of an attack action (e.g. TWF bonus action attack), it seems that this would not apply. | |
| Sep 9 at 9:09 | comment | added | matszwecja | @Kirt I disagree that it is the only reasonable reading. That statement could be there to make it clear that the target must be within your weapon range as well as within 5 feet of original target. So that you cannot attack someone that is standing 10ft from you behind another enemy without a reach weapon. | |
| Sep 9 at 6:47 | comment | added | Kirt | Not only is this correct, I agree that the targeting conditions apply to the first attack, and that is the only reasonable reading. Stating that the target must be within range of your weapon when you make the second attack should not be necessary - it adds a 'restriction' that must always be met anyway. But saying that the second target must have been within range when you made the first attack is a specific limitation that there is reason to mention. | |
| Sep 8 at 19:23 | history | answered | Benjamin T Hall | CC BY-SA 4.0 |