Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ravenwoode 02-14-06, 07:19 PM	According to the PH, soft cover (such as a person between you and your opponent) gives a +4 AC bonus to ranged attacks, but does not effect melee combat with a reach weapon. Also, according to the PH, Cover prevents you from being able to take an Attack of Opportunity vs. a foe. Does Soft Cover prevent AoO with a reach weapon as well? (since AoO's have to be melee attacks?) I would assume not, but I can't find anything that says one way or another...
draconic_swine 02-14-06, 07:37 PM	Since soft cover is listed as just another type of cover in the SRD, I'd be tempted to say that soft cover does indeed prevent AoOs. Also, soft cover's description differentiates it from regular cover, but fails to mention AoOs, further implying that it prevents them.
Tony Vargas 02-14-06, 07:48 PM	Reach weapons determine cover as per ranged weapons, so, yes, soft cover aplies to 'melee attacks with reach weapons,' and yes, it stops AoOs. IMHO, 3.5 makes it too easy to get cover. For instance, in a perfectly straight 5' wide corrdior, anyone 10' or more away from you has cover, from the walls. :rolleyes:
Nom 02-14-06, 08:17 PM	IMHO, 3.5 makes it too easy to get cover. For instance, in a perfectly straight 5' wide corrdior, anyone 10' or more away from you has cover, from the walls. :rolleyes:Only if you consider "passing along" to be equivalent to "passing through" (PH pg 151).
Tony Vargas 02-14-06, 10:12 PM	Only if you consider "passing along" to be equivalent to "passing through" (PH pg 151).That's a straw I wouldn't mind grasping at, but: ... choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border.... Of course, IMHO, no sane DM is going to give you that cover penalty for being in a 5' corridor, or similar situation, where you have an unobstructed path to a target that just /happens/ to have something solid adjacent too that path. However, once you get even a little bit off a perfectly straight row/column of squares, it's all too easy for your line of effect to go 'through' (ie trivially graze) a square... :rolleyes: Letting the attacker choose the center of his square, also wouldn't hurt - it'd solve the 5' corridor problem, and at least reduce the 'grazing' issues.
Dragonteuthis 02-14-06, 10:16 PM	I'm still trying to figure out where you're getting a line passing THROUGH a border in a straight ten-foot hall.
ShinAkuma2 02-14-06, 11:17 PM	I'm still trying to figure out where you're getting a line passing THROUGH a border in a straight ten-foot hall. You go corner to corner when determining ranged cover. That's how.
ShinAkuma2 02-14-06, 11:18 PM	Reach weapons determine cover as per ranged weapons, so, yes, soft cover aplies to 'melee attacks with reach weapons,' and yes, it stops AoOs. Read the errata...this was changed Soft cover does NOT apply to reach weapons.
Nom 02-14-06, 11:26 PM	That's a straw I wouldn't mind grasping at, but ...Well, the D&D miniatures rulebook v2 pg 16 uses that exact distinction ("along, not through"). Read the errata...this was changed Soft cover does NOT apply to reach weapons.Now go back and really read the errata, and the rest of PH pg 151 while you're at it. The errata fixes the erroneous use of the term "melee" in the soft cover paragraph and replaces it with "ranged". It does not errata the first paragraph on pg 151 which states that non-adjacent melee attacks use the ranged soft rules. You're turning a sentence explaining what the mistake was into a general principle that overrides rules that the text isn't trying to errata. The actual errata (vs explanatory text) is quite explicit: "melee" is replaced with "ranged". No exception is added for reach attacks, nor is one supposed to be.
ShinAkuma2 02-15-06, 12:29 AM	Ah-ha. Something to point out to my GM, I see.