Post/Author/DateTime	Post
damsel in distress 03-23-05, 04:00 AM	From SRD: " 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". If you´re using a reach weapon against an opponent with cover relative to you 1) Do you get AOOs ? I guess not. 2) Do you risk to hit whatever (f. ex. an ally) providing the cover ?
murte 03-23-05, 07:41 AM	1) No 2) Yes Course, we also house rule a Polearm Proficiency Feat, which allows one to ignore allies as cover while using reach weapons.
Thorak 03-23-05, 08:51 AM	And this is why tower shields are fun against polearm wielders. Use a standard action to use it for full cover, waltz right in through their threatened squares without provoking an AoO (total cover, remember, they don't threaten and thus you don't provoke), and then stop using it for cover. He has two choices; move away, and provoke an AoO, or drop the polearm and draw the secondary weapon.
kjenks 03-23-05, 02:07 PM	HOWEVER, the PH Errata has a confusing two-sentence entry like this: Soft Cover Player's Handbook, page 151 Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks. In the first sentence of the paragraph, change “melee” to “ranged.” So, if you read and heed that first sentence, soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks, so soft cover does NOT work against a melee attack from a reach weapon. But if you treat the reach weapon like a ranged attack for the purposes of determining cover and you read and heed that second sentence, soft cover DOES work against a melee attack from a reach weapon. I'm sorry, but the rule (as ammended) is unclear on this issue.
Thorak 03-23-05, 02:43 PM	HOWEVER, the PH Errata has a confusing two-sentence entry like this: So, if you read and heed that first sentence, soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks, so soft cover does NOT work against a melee attack from a reach weapon. But if you treat the reach weapon like a ranged attack for the purposes of determining cover and you read and heed that second sentence, soft cover DOES work against a melee attack from a reach weapon. I'm sorry, but the rule (as ammended) is unclear on this issue. No, it's very clear. The PHB says you treat reach weapons as ranged weapons for the purpose of cover. And the Errata states that Soft Cover, a type of cover, applies against ranged attacks, not melee. And a reach weapon, for the purpose of cover, is considered ranged. Reach weapons are just as affected by soft cover as anything else. There's no suggestion that they're sometimes affected as ranged weapons for cover and sometimes not. They always are. For all cover. Even Soft Cover.
kjenks 03-23-05, 03:20 PM	No, it's very clear. The PHB says you treat reach weapons as ranged weapons for the purpose of cover. And the Errata states that Soft Cover, a type of cover, applies against ranged attacks, not melee. And a reach weapon, for the purpose of cover, is considered ranged. Reach weapons are just as affected by soft cover as anything else. There's no suggestion that they're sometimes affected as ranged weapons for cover and sometimes not. They always are. For all cover. Even Soft Cover. So, to Thorak, "it's very clear." You should disregard that first sentence of the errata. It doesn't apply to melee weapons with reach. It just applies to melee weapons without reach. Or if you're using a whip or spiked chain, you should read that sentence if you're in an adjacent square, but you should disregard that sentence if you step back five feet before attacking. Yes, indeedy, that's very clear. I've run into other people who read that first sentence of the Errata and think that it applies to all melee weapons, just as it says. Sigh. Even though I don't think the rules are very clear, I happen to agree with Thorak on the final interpretation, that soft cover does apply if you're attacking with a melee weapon into a non-adjacent square. But I'm not going to argue (much) with a DM who interprets it the other way.
SureFoot 03-24-05, 08:26 AM	Torak is correct. It's pretty clear. The errata is exactly that--they made a mistake in the PHB and erroneously said that soft cover applies to melee attacks, which it does not. The rules further state that melee weapons with reach--a subset of melee attacks--are treated as missile weapons when soft cover is present. All the examples you provided don't change the fact that in those examples, you're attacking with a reach weapon. 1) No 2) Yes Course, we also house rule a Polearm Proficiency Feat, which allows one to ignore allies as cover while using reach weapons. I can't find it in the SRD and I don't have the PHB in front of me, but I'd bet my meager reputation that you're incorrect in your answer to #2. You do NOT run the risk of hitting the soft cover when you're using a reach weapon. Think about it: most reach weapons (spiked chain is the big exception) don't allow you to hit an adjacent foe; why would that change, ever?
Thorak 03-24-05, 09:17 AM	So, to Thorak, "it's very clear." You should disregard that first sentence of the errata. It doesn't apply to melee weapons with reach. It just applies to melee weapons without reach. Or if you're using a whip or spiked chain, you should read that sentence if you're in an adjacent square, but you should disregard that sentence if you step back five feet before attacking. Yes, indeedy, that's very clear. I've run into other people who read that first sentence of the Errata and think that it applies to all melee weapons, just as it says. It is very clear. Direct quote from the Errata; "Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks. In the first sentence of the paragraph, change “melee” to “ranged.”" The first sentence is descriptive, the second details the exact change. And doesn't say anything about "melee weapons with reach", but melee attacks. And an attack with a reach weapon against someone 10' away isn't a melee attack for the purpose of cover. And the Errataed PHB statement is; "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC." And, technically, it's not reach weapons that are treated as ranged for cover, it's melee attacks against targets that aren't adjacent to you. Reach weapons are just one example of such, and if you can use them against an adjacent opponent, like with a whip, then the clause no longer applies. So yes, any time you make a melee attack against a non-adjacent opponent, you check for cover as if the attack is ranged. And soft cover applies if the attack is ranged. How is this unclear? It only becomes unclear when you make assumptions that aren't upheld by the rules. For instance, if you'd read the clause yourself, you'd have answered your own questions about whips and spiked chains. And for a non-reach weapon case; an Ogre attacking someone 10' away. If there's someone between him and that target, the guy at 10' gets soft cover, even if the Ogre's not using a reach weapon, because the target isn't adjacent. And that's the determining factor; adjacency, not anything about the weapon.
damsel in distress 03-29-05, 12:57 AM	ok guys What if you hits the wrong target using sneak (or with a ranged weapon) point blank shot - does the extra damage apply ???? This seems counterintuitive.....
kjenks 03-29-05, 08:29 AM	You can't normally hit the wrong creature within the soft cover rules -- unless your DM uses the optional rule for striking cover. But if you do hit the wrong creature, check out the description of sneak attack. The extra damage only applies to the target.