Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jaelis 07-19-05, 03:12 PM	This came up on another thread, but I'm kind of curious to know what people think. Suppose you are using a glaive (or other reach weapon) and standing right next to an ogre (or other large monster). Presumably you can attack the ogre, since it occupies one or more squares that are 10' away from you. The question is, does it get a cover bonus, due to the fact that you have to attack "through" the occupied squares adjacent to you? My read on it is no, but I'm not sure. A square occupied by a creature provides soft cover, which nominally applies only to ranged attacks. The rules further state that a melee attack against a target that is not adjacent to you follows the ranged cover rules. However, I'm inclined to say that the target of your attack is the ogre, which is adjacent to you, and you should therefore use the normal melee cover rules. The contrary argument is that, for cover purposes, the target of your attack is the square you are attacking, which is not adjacent to you. I can see the merit of this, but I don't really see it in the rules anywhere. Anybody have a better answer? jaelis
Rntaboy 07-19-05, 03:29 PM	Take a five foot step back, and then attack.
ATynam 07-19-05, 03:45 PM	The glossary is your friend. "Reach weapons cannot be used to attack adjacent foes." (except for the spiked chain). "Adjacent: In a square that shares a border or a corner with a designated square." I wouldn't allow you to attack the rear squares of a large creature with a reach weapon on the grounds that it's front squares are adjacent to you. Other than that as Rntaboy says, take a 5'-step back, you won't be triggering an attack of opportunity.
jaelis 07-19-05, 04:08 PM	I'm not worried about how to fight the ogre, just curious about the rules. That's a fair answer, though, ATynam.
ClementWillowbreaker 07-19-05, 04:12 PM	The glossary is not the primary source for weapon attacks, and it does not cover every situation. The actual combat chapter states you can attack any creature if you can make a melee attack into any of the squares it occupies, which you can with a Large creature right next to you.
Colmarr 07-19-05, 04:24 PM	I noticed this issue in the other thread too. Initially I thought that the poster who said the creature would gain cover was incorrect. On further research, I cannot find anything wrong with that per RAW, and it also does seem to accurately represent the difficult you might encounter wielding an 8ft weapon against a foe who's only 5ft away...
the artful dodger 07-20-05, 08:42 AM	The glossary is not the primary source for weapon attacks, and it does not cover every situation. The actual combat chapter states you can attack any creature if you can make a melee attack into any of the squares it occupies, which you can with a Large creature right next to you. Simple logic says the part of the creature 10 ft. away has total cover from your attacks provided by the part between it and you. Total cover means you can't attack it, period. Literary interpretation of the rules isn't the end-all, be-all solution.
jaelis 07-20-05, 09:29 AM	Well... is it so obvious? Couldn't you swing your glaive from the side and hit it on the back corner? Or if it's a tall creature (like a giant), why can't you hit it up high? If it's a short creature (like an ooze), you could swing over the top and chop down. I'm not sure real-world logic is so easy to apply without making things pretty complicated.
Thorak 07-20-05, 10:09 AM	Simple logic says the part of the creature 10 ft. away has total cover from your attacks provided by the part between it and you. Total cover means you can't attack it, period. Literary interpretation of the rules isn't the end-all, be-all solution. In addition to what Jaelis said, if I had 15' reach (just go with it for the purpose of the example), and the Ogre's adjacent to me, I can quite easily attack the Ogre behind him, taking soft cover penalties. I don't see why half the ogre is a bigger blockage than the whole ogre.
KangTheCallipygian 07-20-05, 02:03 PM	The rules for big creatures and cover allow the attacker to choose a square occupied by the big creature as the target when determining if cover exists ("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"). With an adjacent large creature and a reach weapon, adjacent squares are too close to strike at, so those choices are limited to the occupied squares 10 feet away (assuming a medium or small attacker). So since the target in this case is not adjacent, ranged cover rules apply ("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"). This makes soft cover an option, and since the square between the attacker and the target is occupied by a creature (ie. the ogre, albeit the same creature that's being targeted), it should indeed apply ("Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks" though admittedly this is the weak point in my argument - note however, it doesn't say it can't be a too-close part of yourself - yourself being the ogre - giving cover, or even that it must be another creature that gives it; just that creatures can provide cover. And ogres are creatures...). This is how I've ruled on this in the past, and as far as I can tell I've followed the rules as closely as possible in doing so. Seems appropriate, as the too-close ogre bits could interfere with swinging the pole part of the polearm to make contact with the "business end". An AC bonus for soft cover seems to represent this nicely IMO. Kang
jaelis 07-20-05, 03:13 PM	... So since the target in this case is not adjacent, ranged cover rules apply ... The part that bothers me is defining the target of your attack to be the square, not the creature. Maybe I just need to let it go.
the artful dodger 07-20-05, 07:50 PM	Well... is it so obvious? Couldn't you swing your glaive from the side and hit it on the back corner? Or if it's a tall creature (like a giant), why can't you hit it up high? If it's a short creature (like an ooze), you could swing over the top and chop down. I'm not sure real-world logic is so easy to apply without making things pretty complicated. In addition to what Jaelis said, if I had 15' reach (just go with it for the purpose of the example), and the Ogre's adjacent to me, I can quite easily attack the Ogre behind him, taking soft cover penalties. I don't see why half the ogre is a bigger blockage than the whole ogre. And if you're a simple Medium-sized char with a glaive, adjacent to a foe that takes up a 15-by-15 ft.² space, as tall as you are or even taller? Just look at the specific situation and adjudicate so it makes sense.
ClementWillowbreaker 07-20-05, 08:47 PM	And if you're a simple Medium-sized char with a glaive, adjacent to a foe that takes up a 15-by-15 ft.² space, as tall as you are or even taller? Just look at the specific situation and adjudicate so it makes sense. That's not how it goes. Answer Thorak's specific situation, since unless you show differently, it reveals that your situation is inconsistent and illogical. You can't have the net down for your serve but up for his returns...
the artful dodger 07-21-05, 04:20 AM	That's not how it goes. Answer Thorak's specific situation, since unless you show differently, it reveals that your situation is inconsistent and illogical. You can't have the net down for your serve but up for his returns... Reach weapons against larger opponents *is* inconsistent. That's my point. A single ruling doesn't cover every such situation.
Thorak 07-21-05, 06:05 AM	And if you're a simple Medium-sized char with a glaive, adjacent to a foe that takes up a 15-by-15 ft.² space, as tall as you are or even taller? Just look at the specific situation and adjudicate so it makes sense. I am looking at the specific situation. I see absolutely no reason I can't hit the 15x15 character on the bits of him I can reach. Sure, the other bits get in the way a bit, that's why he gets soft cover. Reach weapons against larger opponents *is* inconsistent. That's my point. A single ruling doesn't cover every such situation. You have failed to show any inconsistency besides your own application of the rules. Or any good reason to justify your point besides insisting you must be right. And remember; there's no such thing as facing in D&D, and the creature doesn't make a complete barrier against attacks in the squares it fills. You're not attacking the bits exactly behind it, you're attacking the bits 10' away from you. You explain why I can't hit the ogre's back leg, using a whip, when I could target the orc standing behind that leg.
the artful dodger 07-21-05, 06:48 AM	You explain why I can't hit the ogre's back leg, using a whip, when I could target the orc standing behind that leg.I don't think we were talking about whips (or spiked chains, or any other supple weapon). We were talking about glaives, and I do have a hard time picturing anyone whipping such a rigid weapon around a foe who's substantially broader to hit that foe in the back (or even side).
jaelis 07-21-05, 08:07 AM	OK, for a concrete example of Thorak's point, consider an enlarged fighter, wielding a glaive. There is one ogre standing 5' away from him (occupying squares at 10' and 15'). Another ogre is right behind the first (occupying squares at 20' and 25'). An enlarged glaive can attack at 15' and 20'. You are saying in this case that you could not attack the first ogre, but you could attack the second? And if you object that now the ogre and the fighter are the same size, you can set up the same situation with two huge giants. Not that it really matters. Clearly, artful dodger is in the camp of "change the rules as you go along, depending on what makes sense at the time." That's not the way I like to play, but I'm not in his game.
Thorak 07-21-05, 09:58 AM	I don't think we were talking about whips (or spiked chains, or any other supple weapon). We were talking about glaives, and I do have a hard time picturing anyone whipping such a rigid weapon around a foe who's substantially broader to hit that foe in the back (or even side). I only brought up the whip because it's the only core weapon with a 15' reach. My point stands exactly the same if you want to use your own homebrewed "mega-spear" which has a 15' reach. Or some kind of glaive even. As for the rest; you completely missed my point. Characters don't have sides in D&D. They have squares. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to attack the rear squares, if I have reach. You haven't provided any reasonable justification for changing the rules beyond "I don't like it". Either explain why I can't hit an ogre's back leg, or drop your argument.
the artful dodger 07-21-05, 10:11 AM	Either explain why I can't hit an ogre's back leg, or drop your argument. Because the front leg is in the way, obviously. I've never use the argument that 'I don't like it'. My argument is that a polearm is too rigid and unwieldy to hit an opponent in a part of his body that's turned away from you. Situations with several opponents, one of which provides soft cover, are pretty much irrelevant. That's soft cover, which you can get past because both opponents don't constantly move in a way that allows one to keep up perfect cover for the other. It's a hindrance, but noting more. When trying to hit the hind part of a foe, the front part is always in the way. Back and front move in concert. You can't hit the part of a foe's torso that's furthest away from you with a straight weapon, because you'd have to go through the rest of the torso first. Note that I'm not trying to change the rules. Those say pretty clearly you can't attack an adjacent foe with a reach weapon other than the spiked chain. I don't think that's entirely logical either, but not in the way you seem to want them to work.
Thorak 07-21-05, 01:42 PM	Because the front leg is in the way, obviously. I've never use the argument that 'I don't like it'. My argument is that a polearm is too rigid and unwieldy to hit an opponent in a part of his body that's turned away from you. How is his front leg in the way if he's facing me? His waist is at head-height to me, and his front leg is to the left, while I have a clear view to his rear leg on the right. As an example. Unless you're claiming that Ogres always stand sideways so that their legs line up with every opponent they face simultaneously, breaking the laws of physics. Or that their legs are 10' wide and fill the entire square completely to their full height. Situations with several opponents, one of which provides soft cover, are pretty much irrelevant. That's soft cover, which you can get past because both opponents don't constantly move in a way that allows one to keep up perfect cover for the other. It's a hindrance, but noting more. Can I hit the back leg of a guy in normal combat? Darn tooting. Why can't I hit the back leg of an Ogre in combat, if I have a long enough weapon? When trying to hit the hind part of a foe, the front part is always in the way. Back and front move in concert. You can't hit the part of a foe's torso that's furthest away from you with a straight weapon, because you'd have to go through the rest of the torso first. This simply isn't true. Most especially because we're not talking about hitting the part of a creature that's blocked by the front part. We're talking about hitting the part of a creature that's further back than most. Unless you're going to claim that the front of an ogre magically fills the entire 10' area in front of it, providing total cover to all behind it, you don't have any basis for this claim. Note that I'm not trying to change the rules. Those say pretty clearly you can't attack an adjacent foe with a reach weapon other than the spiked chain. I don't think that's entirely logical either, but not in the way you seem to want them to work. You're arguing that the front half of a creature provides total cover to the rear part of the creature. So yes, you're trying to change the rules. You haven't given any reason whatsoever why an Ogre provides better cover to his own back leg with his front leg than both legs provide to the orc behind him.
the artful dodger 07-21-05, 02:39 PM	Most especially because we're not talking about hitting the part of a creature that's blocked by the front part. We're talking about hitting the part of a creature that's further back than most. I think I found the source of our disagreement (or a point of contention, at least): my English. I was refering to the backside of body parts as seen from the PC's POV, not an entire bodypart that's positioned further away from the PC. You can't hit an ogre in the back when it's facing you, unless you go right through it's chest or have a weapon that can be whipped around.
Thorak 07-21-05, 05:26 PM	I think I found the source of our disagreement (or a point of contention, at least): my English. I was refering to the backside of body parts as seen from the PC's POV, not an entire bodypart that's positioned further away from the PC. You can't hit an ogre in the back when it's facing you, unless you go right through it's chest or have a weapon that can be whipped around. Okay then. What's your justification for applying this wholesale to the creature and all its body parts? If I can hit his back leg because his front leg isn't in the way, then that's attacking with soft cover with a reach weapon to the back squares of the creature. Exactly what you've been arguing against.
the artful dodger 07-21-05, 05:57 PM	If I can hit his back leg because his front leg isn't in the way, then that's attacking with soft cover with a reach weapon to the back squares of the creature. What kind of creature are we talking about anyway? Anything with less than 3 legs doesn't necessarily even have a back leg, they might simply be equidistant compared to your position. In combat, a creature takes up a number of squares. Those squares together are much larger in surface than the creature would take up standing still. You can't know which of the squares a creature takes up in combat it's actually in at any given moment, so who's to say you even have an opportunity to strike at your foe in any given square during a given round?
Thorak 07-21-05, 08:14 PM	What kind of creature are we talking about anyway? Anything with less than 3 legs doesn't necessarily even have a back leg, they might simply be equidistant compared to your position. In combat, a creature takes up a number of squares. Those squares together are much larger in surface than the creature would take up standing still. You can't know which of the squares a creature takes up in combat it's actually in at any given moment, so who's to say you even have an opportunity to strike at your foe in any given square during a given round? The rules; "Similarly, when making a melee attack against [a Large or larger] creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you." You get to pick the square you're attacking into.
ClementWillowbreaker 07-21-05, 09:46 PM	Also, Dodger, there is no facing, so yes you can hit someone in the back when they have directed an attack at you already- at some point they turn around to fend off other attacks, look around making Spot checks, breathe, etc. And except for creatures that completely fill their squares (like a cubic ooze, which is the ONLY type of creature I would say could possibily do what you attribute to all Large and larger creatures), they don't necessarily occupy all the squares at once. They move back and forth. So at some point in the round, the ogre IS going to be more than 5ft away from any given attacker. Bringing too much realism like that into an abstract wargame (which combat really is in DnD) slows it down and sucks all the fun out of it. Esspecially when a player has used a glaive for 5 levels, and now you tell him he can't attack things 5ft away.
the artful dodger 07-21-05, 10:08 PM	The rules; "Similarly, when making a melee attack against [a Large or larger] creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you." You get to pick the square you're attacking into. Back up a minute. You get to pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you. That doesn't mean you get to pick the square you're attacking into without further limits. You can pick any square you *can* attack into. With a reach weapon, that's none of the squares occupied by an adjacent foe. By the rules at least, if you take them literally. Also, Dodger, there is no facing, so yes you can hit someone in the back when they have directed an attack at you already- at some point they turn around to fend off other attacks, look around making Spot checks, breathe, etc. And except for creatures that completely fill their squares (like a cubic ooze, which is the ONLY type of creature I would say could possibily do what you attribute to all Large and larger creatures), they don't necessarily occupy all the squares at once. They move back and forth. So at some point in the round, the ogre IS going to be more than 5ft away from any given attacker. At some point they *might* turn around. It's an assumption that they will, not fact. I actually pointed out that such creatures don't occupy all squares (certainly not at once, except in the case of an ooze or something, like you say). Your conclusion that they must therefore occupy all squares at some point is again an assumption, not a given. Bringing too much realism like that into an abstract wargame (which combat really is in DnD) slows it down and sucks all the fun out of it. Esspecially when a player has used a glaive for 5 levels, and now you tell him he can't attack things 5ft away. No offense, but when a player has used a glaive for 5 levels and attacked things 5 ft. away from him during those 5 levels, he's been going against the rules for 5 levels. That's cool by me, if it's been mutually agreed upon. I would never suggest changing such a ruling mid-campaign though.
ClementWillowbreaker 07-21-05, 10:47 PM	No, its a fact. Or else mounted combat doesn't follow the same rules as everything else. While mounted, you are considered to occupy any and all squares as your mount- meaning you can attack from any, and be hit in any, without cover. In fact, you have to make a specific check to get cover from your mount. So there we are. The fighter attacks as if he was not adjacent to stab an adjacent enemy with a lance, and the enemy can immediately hit back against the fighter, even with a dagger- because the fighter is equally adjacent as he was 10ft away. And an enemy on the other side can hit the fighter with a dagger as well, since it is ASSUMED BY THE RAW THAT HE IS IN ALL HIS SQUARES IN THE ROUND THOUGH HE IS STILL A MEDIUM 5x5 CREATURE. So drop it already Dodger.
the artful dodger 07-25-05, 12:42 PM	No, its a fact. Or else mounted combat doesn't follow the same rules as everything else. Of course it doesn't. A medium character on a mount is still medium sized. It controls an equal amount of space as an unmounted large character does (because the mount is large), but physically it doesn't take as much space (the mount does). A character with a reach weapon adjacent to the squares occupied by a mounted character isn't necessarily adjacent to the mounted character, and because of that he can attack that character with his reach weapon. An unmounted character adjacent to another unmounted character is adjacent period, and can't attack the other with a reach weapon.