Big creatures and cover for ranged attacks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Big creatures and cover for ranged attacks [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Christaldo
02-17-05, 06:43 AM In PH. page 151 there are some special rules for cover in melee attacks against big creatures, but what about ranged attacks? I guess you pick one corner for the attacker and use the line of sight, as the standard rule. But then I'm not sure which square on the big creature I should use the line of sight to. I guess there are rules for this, but where?
No-man
02-17-05, 11:32 AM Generally, if the creature occupies a 10' square and is bipedal, use the edges of the 10' area. If the creature is quadrapedal (or more :D ) use the 5' or 10' square occupied by its head.
ClementWillowbreaker
02-17-05, 02:17 PM You pick any square the creature occupies. If you have unbroken lines to each of that square's corners, there is no cover.
KangTheCallipygian
02-17-05, 03:08 PM You pick any square the creature occupies. If you have unbroken lines to each of that square's corners, there is no cover.Close... The full rule for ranged cover is that if you, the attacker, have unbroken lines to each of the target's square's corners from a single corner of your own space which you may choose, there is no cover.From the SRD:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, 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 that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
...
When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.What you have described looks a little more like the rule for cover in melee, where any line from anywhere in a single square you occupy (your choice of squares if you are large or bigger) to anywhere in a single square the target occupies (again, attacker's choice of occupied squares) that is broken indicates cover exists.From the SRD:
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall).My interpretation of these rules is backed up by the incredibly handy diagrams in the PHB, which show examples of cover from ranged vs. melee attacks on a section of battlegrid.

The 'Big Creatures and Cover' rule actually specifies melee attacks, but makes no reference to ranged attacks, so I'm not so sure that the RAW supports the ranged (or reach) attacker being able to choose one of the big target creature's occupied squares rather than just the 4 outside corners of its whole space. I'm quite sure this lack of any mention of big creatures' cover from ranged/reach attacks is what prompted the question at hand in the first place. However, I myself houserule that the Big Creatures rule does apply to ranged cover; it seems entirely reasonable to me.From the SRD:
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.Hope that helps.

Kang
Nom
02-17-05, 07:44 PM The 'Big Creatures and Cover' rule actually specifies melee attacks, but makes no reference to ranged attacksThis is a mistake, and is corrected in the errata. It's supposed to be talking about ranged attacks.

Attacks are resolved from one square (as in a 5 ft. square) to another square. If either the attacker or target is bigger than one square, the attack picks which squares to resolve the attack to and from. Note that if the target chooses to return fire, he does not have to pick the same pair of squares.
Christaldo
02-18-05, 08:32 AM This is a mistake, and is corrected in the errata. It's supposed to be talking about ranged attacks.

I couldn't find this correction in the errata, but maybe I didn't look good enough. So you should delete melee and replace it with ranged, so the text should look like this:

From the SRD:
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against ranged attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its ranged attacks. Similarly, when making a ranged attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
Nom
02-18-05, 06:08 PM Yep.

Hmm. Maybe I need to look again. The actual errata reference "soft cover" is to the previous paragraph.

Maybe I've had it wrong the whole time, and a ranged attack must target the entire space of the creature.
Christaldo
02-19-05, 05:54 PM In my group, the archer (9th lv) has a composite longbow of speed and combined with use of the rapid shot feat, that give him a superb full attack. He can make tree attacks at his best attack bonus, only with a -2 penalty. This, after my opinion, make archers very powerful in combat. And if he picks improved rapid shot, there will be no -2.

At 11th level he will take the improved precise shot, which take away cover (not total cover) and make this discussion much more easy :).

I have earlier stated a post where I think archers do more damage and are more powerful than melee fighers in combat, because they often have better opportunities for full attacks, rather than melee fighters, and at a lower risk. Of course a melee fighter will deal more damage during a full attack, but if his opponent survive, there will be a hard return for him.

My point is: There are good reasons why there should be difficult for archers to make a clear shot and if the ranged attack must target the entire space of the creature instead of one square, it is more difficult to find that spot. The archer must move more if he want a clear shot, which also make him more vulnerable.

And I really enjoy gaming when the characters are working together. A melee fighter who is dynamic and always movable, combined with the archers full attack are smashing and enjoyable to watch as a DM.
Nom
02-20-05, 04:53 AM As for rules, the D&D miniatures rules (loosely based on the D&D rules) specifically say that a ranged attack goes from a corner of the atacker to the entire base of the target creature, which tends to suggest that the same rules apply in regular D&D.

Which leads to an interesting house rule: eliminate the cover modifier, but change the creature's size modifier to one appropriate for however much you can see.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Christaldo 02-17-05, 06:43 AM	In PH. page 151 there are some special rules for cover in melee attacks against big creatures, but what about ranged attacks? I guess you pick one corner for the attacker and use the line of sight, as the standard rule. But then I'm not sure which square on the big creature I should use the line of sight to. I guess there are rules for this, but where?
No-man 02-17-05, 11:32 AM	Generally, if the creature occupies a 10' square and is bipedal, use the edges of the 10' area. If the creature is quadrapedal (or more :D ) use the 5' or 10' square occupied by its head.
ClementWillowbreaker 02-17-05, 02:17 PM	You pick any square the creature occupies. If you have unbroken lines to each of that square's corners, there is no cover.
KangTheCallipygian 02-17-05, 03:08 PM	You pick any square the creature occupies. If you have unbroken lines to each of that square's corners, there is no cover.Close... The full rule for ranged cover is that if you, the attacker, have unbroken lines to each of the target's square's corners from a single corner of your own space which you may choose, there is no cover.From the SRD: To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, 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 that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). ... When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.What you have described looks a little more like the rule for cover in melee, where any line from anywhere in a single square you occupy (your choice of squares if you are large or bigger) to anywhere in a single square the target occupies (again, attacker's choice of occupied squares) that is broken indicates cover exists.From the SRD: When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall).My interpretation of these rules is backed up by the incredibly handy diagrams in the PHB, which show examples of cover from ranged vs. melee attacks on a section of battlegrid. The 'Big Creatures and Cover' rule actually specifies melee attacks, but makes no reference to ranged attacks, so I'm not so sure that the RAW supports the ranged (or reach) attacker being able to choose one of the big target creature's occupied squares rather than just the 4 outside corners of its whole space. I'm quite sure this lack of any mention of big creatures' cover from ranged/reach attacks is what prompted the question at hand in the first place. However, I myself houserule that the Big Creatures rule does apply to ranged cover; it seems entirely reasonable to me.From the SRD: Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.Hope that helps. Kang
Nom 02-17-05, 07:44 PM	The 'Big Creatures and Cover' rule actually specifies melee attacks, but makes no reference to ranged attacksThis is a mistake, and is corrected in the errata. It's supposed to be talking about ranged attacks. Attacks are resolved from one square (as in a 5 ft. square) to another square. If either the attacker or target is bigger than one square, the attack picks which squares to resolve the attack to and from. Note that if the target chooses to return fire, he does not have to pick the same pair of squares.
Christaldo 02-18-05, 08:32 AM	This is a mistake, and is corrected in the errata. It's supposed to be talking about ranged attacks. I couldn't find this correction in the errata, but maybe I didn't look good enough. So you should delete melee and replace it with ranged, so the text should look like this: From the SRD: Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against ranged attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its ranged attacks. Similarly, when making a ranged attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
Nom 02-18-05, 06:08 PM	Yep. Hmm. Maybe I need to look again. The actual errata reference "soft cover" is to the previous paragraph. Maybe I've had it wrong the whole time, and a ranged attack must target the entire space of the creature.
Christaldo 02-19-05, 05:54 PM	In my group, the archer (9th lv) has a composite longbow of speed and combined with use of the rapid shot feat, that give him a superb full attack. He can make tree attacks at his best attack bonus, only with a -2 penalty. This, after my opinion, make archers very powerful in combat. And if he picks improved rapid shot, there will be no -2. At 11th level he will take the improved precise shot, which take away cover (not total cover) and make this discussion much more easy :). I have earlier stated a post where I think archers do more damage and are more powerful than melee fighers in combat, because they often have better opportunities for full attacks, rather than melee fighters, and at a lower risk. Of course a melee fighter will deal more damage during a full attack, but if his opponent survive, there will be a hard return for him. My point is: There are good reasons why there should be difficult for archers to make a clear shot and if the ranged attack must target the entire space of the creature instead of one square, it is more difficult to find that spot. The archer must move more if he want a clear shot, which also make him more vulnerable. And I really enjoy gaming when the characters are working together. A melee fighter who is dynamic and always movable, combined with the archers full attack are smashing and enjoyable to watch as a DM.
Nom 02-20-05, 04:53 AM	As for rules, the D&D miniatures rules (loosely based on the D&D rules) specifically say that a ranged attack goes from a corner of the atacker to the entire base of the target creature, which tends to suggest that the same rules apply in regular D&D. Which leads to an interesting house rule: eliminate the cover modifier, but change the creature's size modifier to one appropriate for however much you can see.