If you are grappled by a creature with 10'+ reach, can you make a ranged attack without disadvantage?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
12
down vote

favorite












The rules for grappling require:




The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than
you, and it must be within your reach. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




Normally, this would mean that you must be within 5' of a creature to grapple it. But some creatures have a longer reach. For example, an Ancient Red Dragon could grapple a creature with its claws which is 10' away from it (an odd use of its action, but whatever).



Jeremy Crawford has already indicated that if you're grappled, you can still attack the creature grappling you even if their space is outside your reach, since you can attack the arm/tentacle/appendage that is holding onto your body. But I wondered about a similar situation: ranged attacks.



The rule on making ranged attacks while an enemy is nearby states:




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 of a hostile creature
who can see you and who isn’t
incapacitated. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




So if you are grappled by a creature who is 10' or more away from you (but you're in its reach), and you make a ranged attack, do you have disadvantage?



On the one hand, you are more that 5' away from its space. On the other hand, part of its body is definitely within 5' of you, since you're grappled by it.



Is there any definitive answer to this question? I've tried to search similar questions and sage advice, but without success.







share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Relevant: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48498/…
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:19
















up vote
12
down vote

favorite












The rules for grappling require:




The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than
you, and it must be within your reach. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




Normally, this would mean that you must be within 5' of a creature to grapple it. But some creatures have a longer reach. For example, an Ancient Red Dragon could grapple a creature with its claws which is 10' away from it (an odd use of its action, but whatever).



Jeremy Crawford has already indicated that if you're grappled, you can still attack the creature grappling you even if their space is outside your reach, since you can attack the arm/tentacle/appendage that is holding onto your body. But I wondered about a similar situation: ranged attacks.



The rule on making ranged attacks while an enemy is nearby states:




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 of a hostile creature
who can see you and who isn’t
incapacitated. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




So if you are grappled by a creature who is 10' or more away from you (but you're in its reach), and you make a ranged attack, do you have disadvantage?



On the one hand, you are more that 5' away from its space. On the other hand, part of its body is definitely within 5' of you, since you're grappled by it.



Is there any definitive answer to this question? I've tried to search similar questions and sage advice, but without success.







share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Relevant: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48498/…
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:19












up vote
12
down vote

favorite









up vote
12
down vote

favorite











The rules for grappling require:




The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than
you, and it must be within your reach. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




Normally, this would mean that you must be within 5' of a creature to grapple it. But some creatures have a longer reach. For example, an Ancient Red Dragon could grapple a creature with its claws which is 10' away from it (an odd use of its action, but whatever).



Jeremy Crawford has already indicated that if you're grappled, you can still attack the creature grappling you even if their space is outside your reach, since you can attack the arm/tentacle/appendage that is holding onto your body. But I wondered about a similar situation: ranged attacks.



The rule on making ranged attacks while an enemy is nearby states:




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 of a hostile creature
who can see you and who isn’t
incapacitated. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




So if you are grappled by a creature who is 10' or more away from you (but you're in its reach), and you make a ranged attack, do you have disadvantage?



On the one hand, you are more that 5' away from its space. On the other hand, part of its body is definitely within 5' of you, since you're grappled by it.



Is there any definitive answer to this question? I've tried to search similar questions and sage advice, but without success.







share|improve this question














The rules for grappling require:




The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than
you, and it must be within your reach. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




Normally, this would mean that you must be within 5' of a creature to grapple it. But some creatures have a longer reach. For example, an Ancient Red Dragon could grapple a creature with its claws which is 10' away from it (an odd use of its action, but whatever).



Jeremy Crawford has already indicated that if you're grappled, you can still attack the creature grappling you even if their space is outside your reach, since you can attack the arm/tentacle/appendage that is holding onto your body. But I wondered about a similar situation: ranged attacks.



The rule on making ranged attacks while an enemy is nearby states:




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 of a hostile creature
who can see you and who isn’t
incapacitated. (PHB, p. 195, italics added)




So if you are grappled by a creature who is 10' or more away from you (but you're in its reach), and you make a ranged attack, do you have disadvantage?



On the one hand, you are more that 5' away from its space. On the other hand, part of its body is definitely within 5' of you, since you're grappled by it.



Is there any definitive answer to this question? I've tried to search similar questions and sage advice, but without success.









share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 14 at 1:59









V2Blast

13.4k23386




13.4k23386










asked Aug 13 at 22:01









Gandalfmeansme

11.8k24383




11.8k24383







  • 1




    Relevant: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48498/…
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:19












  • 1




    Relevant: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48498/…
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:19







1




1




Relevant: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48498/…
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 13 at 22:19




Relevant: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/48498/…
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 13 at 22:19










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
12
down vote



accepted










RAW, grappling with reach doesn't impose disadvantage



There are no rules stating that being within a monster's reach imposes disadvantage. The rules explicitly say "within 5 feet", not "within an enemy's reach". Grappling, unless otherwise stated, does not naturally impose disadvantage to attacks by itself.



Grappling does say this:




When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
[...] The [grappled] condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect [...]




So if you are not within 5 feet, and grappling does not impose disadvantage, and grappling relies on reach rather than adjacency, then being grappled at that extended reach will have no effect to your ranged attacks.



This does bring up a possible question as to how movement/positioning works after being grappled with reach, but that may be grounds for a different question.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Because of the double negatives involved in my question, you might want your answer's title line to be a bit more direct. Like "The Attack would not have disadvantage, according to RAW."
    – Gandalfmeansme
    Aug 13 at 22:34










  • @Gandalfmeansme Good point! Fixed it!
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:35










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129576%2fif-you-are-grappled-by-a-creature-with-10-reach-can-you-make-a-ranged-attack%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
12
down vote



accepted










RAW, grappling with reach doesn't impose disadvantage



There are no rules stating that being within a monster's reach imposes disadvantage. The rules explicitly say "within 5 feet", not "within an enemy's reach". Grappling, unless otherwise stated, does not naturally impose disadvantage to attacks by itself.



Grappling does say this:




When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
[...] The [grappled] condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect [...]




So if you are not within 5 feet, and grappling does not impose disadvantage, and grappling relies on reach rather than adjacency, then being grappled at that extended reach will have no effect to your ranged attacks.



This does bring up a possible question as to how movement/positioning works after being grappled with reach, but that may be grounds for a different question.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Because of the double negatives involved in my question, you might want your answer's title line to be a bit more direct. Like "The Attack would not have disadvantage, according to RAW."
    – Gandalfmeansme
    Aug 13 at 22:34










  • @Gandalfmeansme Good point! Fixed it!
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:35














up vote
12
down vote



accepted










RAW, grappling with reach doesn't impose disadvantage



There are no rules stating that being within a monster's reach imposes disadvantage. The rules explicitly say "within 5 feet", not "within an enemy's reach". Grappling, unless otherwise stated, does not naturally impose disadvantage to attacks by itself.



Grappling does say this:




When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
[...] The [grappled] condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect [...]




So if you are not within 5 feet, and grappling does not impose disadvantage, and grappling relies on reach rather than adjacency, then being grappled at that extended reach will have no effect to your ranged attacks.



This does bring up a possible question as to how movement/positioning works after being grappled with reach, but that may be grounds for a different question.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Because of the double negatives involved in my question, you might want your answer's title line to be a bit more direct. Like "The Attack would not have disadvantage, according to RAW."
    – Gandalfmeansme
    Aug 13 at 22:34










  • @Gandalfmeansme Good point! Fixed it!
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:35












up vote
12
down vote



accepted







up vote
12
down vote



accepted






RAW, grappling with reach doesn't impose disadvantage



There are no rules stating that being within a monster's reach imposes disadvantage. The rules explicitly say "within 5 feet", not "within an enemy's reach". Grappling, unless otherwise stated, does not naturally impose disadvantage to attacks by itself.



Grappling does say this:




When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
[...] The [grappled] condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect [...]




So if you are not within 5 feet, and grappling does not impose disadvantage, and grappling relies on reach rather than adjacency, then being grappled at that extended reach will have no effect to your ranged attacks.



This does bring up a possible question as to how movement/positioning works after being grappled with reach, but that may be grounds for a different question.






share|improve this answer














RAW, grappling with reach doesn't impose disadvantage



There are no rules stating that being within a monster's reach imposes disadvantage. The rules explicitly say "within 5 feet", not "within an enemy's reach". Grappling, unless otherwise stated, does not naturally impose disadvantage to attacks by itself.



Grappling does say this:




When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
[...] The [grappled] condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect [...]




So if you are not within 5 feet, and grappling does not impose disadvantage, and grappling relies on reach rather than adjacency, then being grappled at that extended reach will have no effect to your ranged attacks.



This does bring up a possible question as to how movement/positioning works after being grappled with reach, but that may be grounds for a different question.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Aug 13 at 22:50

























answered Aug 13 at 22:28









Daniel Zastoupil

3,8581047




3,8581047







  • 1




    Because of the double negatives involved in my question, you might want your answer's title line to be a bit more direct. Like "The Attack would not have disadvantage, according to RAW."
    – Gandalfmeansme
    Aug 13 at 22:34










  • @Gandalfmeansme Good point! Fixed it!
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:35












  • 1




    Because of the double negatives involved in my question, you might want your answer's title line to be a bit more direct. Like "The Attack would not have disadvantage, according to RAW."
    – Gandalfmeansme
    Aug 13 at 22:34










  • @Gandalfmeansme Good point! Fixed it!
    – Daniel Zastoupil
    Aug 13 at 22:35







1




1




Because of the double negatives involved in my question, you might want your answer's title line to be a bit more direct. Like "The Attack would not have disadvantage, according to RAW."
– Gandalfmeansme
Aug 13 at 22:34




Because of the double negatives involved in my question, you might want your answer's title line to be a bit more direct. Like "The Attack would not have disadvantage, according to RAW."
– Gandalfmeansme
Aug 13 at 22:34












@Gandalfmeansme Good point! Fixed it!
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 13 at 22:35




@Gandalfmeansme Good point! Fixed it!
– Daniel Zastoupil
Aug 13 at 22:35

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129576%2fif-you-are-grappled-by-a-creature-with-10-reach-can-you-make-a-ranged-attack%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

One-line joke