Cover rules for creatures with melee reach? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cover rules for creatures with melee reach? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Amurayi
05-21-07, 04:46 AM Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach?

It would seem strange to me that a gnome standing between a Great Old Wyrm and another character gives +4 cover on AC to that character.

The question always comes up when PCs enlarge themselves and stand behind their comrades to attack the creatures in front.
Kouk
05-21-07, 06:10 AM That's a tricky one that I don't think the rules address.

I would consider a normal sized (medium) creature to be about half cover for a large: tall or bigger creature. Similar to a human attacking over a low wall. Cover is relative, so you have to use your judgement a lot of the time.

Normal +4 for a large: long or similar creature. They are large, but still low to the ground. They often don't have reach anyway.
Vegepygmy
05-21-07, 12:50 PM Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach?Yes.

It would seem strange to me that a gnome standing between a Great Old Wyrm and another character gives +4 cover on AC to that character.The advantage the Great Old Wyrm has in this situation is that it can choose to make the attack from a corner of its space that perhaps does not provide the gnome with cover.

If the GOW can't do so, I don't see why it would "seem strange" to you that the gnome would gain some benefit (and it's not like a measly +4 to AC is much protection from a GOW) from cowering behind another person whom the GOW is evidently reluctant to just rip into shreds.
RavenDrake
05-21-07, 12:53 PM Actually I would use the "Low Obstacles and Cover" rule for this:

Low Obstacles and Cover

A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

If the player is one or more squares behind the person they're trying claim cover from, and the attacker is closer to thier covering person(and at least twice as tall) then the attacker can ignore them for cover purposes.

Edit: Edited for clarity in the example.
jaelis
05-21-07, 01:11 PM Actually I would use the "Low Obstacles and Cover" rule for this:

Me too.
SephDragoon
05-21-07, 02:13 PM You see, this is where I start thinking 3 dimensionally... and start taking into account verticle space (like flying etc). THe Great Wyrm also has spaces that are like... 50 feet in the air. From one of those spaces to the creature behind the gnome, there is nothing blocking it.

Same principle as what was described by Vegepygmy, but using his height in space as well. Frankly, I know it is harder to think of things in 3d, which is why most of the time they don't cover it in the books, but thinking of it like that usually makes the rules easier to understand for stuff like this.
mvincent
05-21-07, 02:18 PM use the "Low Obstacles and Cover" rule for thisAgreed. It has been established in older discussions that cover can be both low and soft at the same time.
mvincent
05-21-07, 02:23 PM You see, this is where I start thinking 3 dimensionally... and start taking into account verticle space (like flying etc). THe Great Wyrm also has spaces that are like... 50 feet in the air. From one of those spaces to the creature behind the gnome, there is nothing blocking it.That line of thinking would also imply that the wyrm would get no benefit from being 75% behind cover (because you could still target one of its squares that is not behind cover). That is not how D&D works though.
Kouk
05-21-07, 02:37 PM That line of thinking would also imply that the wyrm would get no benefit from being 75% behind cover (because you could still target one of its squares that is not behind cover). That is not how D&D works though.

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.

If it is sticking out, then it isn't hiding very well. It only gets cover for the parts that are behind cover.

Low Obstacles sounds good.
SephDragoon
05-21-07, 02:48 PM That line of thinking would also imply that the wyrm would get no benefit from being 75% behind cover (because you could still target one of its squares that is not behind cover). That is not how D&D works though.

Kind of is by the quote above. Sorry buddy. Besides, you have to realize, the smaller creature has to have a weapon that can reach that far. If he does, then well, the fact that a giant dragon head is sticking out doesn't really help the dragon much. It is a very big target.
Nom
05-21-07, 07:49 PM If it is sticking out, then it isn't hiding very well. It only gets cover for the parts that are behind cover.For melee. For ranged attacks (including reach attacks), you must target the entire space.

(For explicit precedent, see the minis rules, which use the same diagrams and explicitly require the entire space to be targeted)
THe Great Wyrm also has spaces that are like... 50 feet in the air. From one of those spaces to the creature behind the gnome, there is nothing blocking it.Actually, there is. Imagine each creature's space as a cube. Draw two lines from the top of the great wyrm's cube to the bottom front corners of the target's cube. At least one of those lines will intersect the gnome's cube.
Amurayi
05-22-07, 05:20 AM I don't see why you recommend to apply the low obstacle rule.

Low Obstacles and Cover

A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.

Let's say an enlarged Fighter with a longsword stands behind his gnome fired and directly behind the gnome (adjecent) the enemy. The gnome might be a "low obstacle" but the enemy is at the same distance to the gnome so the fighter can't ignore it. Thus the enemy gets +4 cover, no?
RavenDrake
05-22-07, 12:30 PM Let's say an enlarged Fighter with a longsword stands behind his gnome fired and directly behind the gnome (adjecent) the enemy. The gnome might be a "low obstacle" but the enemy is at the same distance to the gnome so the fighter can't ignore it. Thus the enemy gets +4 cover, no?

Yes. That's how the rules say it works, whether it's a wall or a gnome in the way, it's still low cover. It's soft cover(and uses the soft cover rules) but still qualifies as Low Cover.
Vegepygmy
05-22-07, 12:30 PM I don't see why you recommend to apply the low obstacle rule.Because it fits.

Let's say an enlarged Fighter with a longsword stands behind his gnome fired and directly behind the gnome (adjecent) the enemy. The gnome might be a "low obstacle"...And that's why you should apply the low obstacle rule.

...but the enemy is at the same distance to the gnome so the fighter can't ignore it. Thus the enemy gets +4 cover, no?Just because you aren't getting the result you expected, doesn't mean the rule isn't applicable.
mvincent
05-22-07, 12:37 PM Kind of is by the quote above. Sorry buddy. 'Buddy'? Besides being incorrect, you are now being rude again.

Edit: removed some uneeded text.
SephDragoon
05-22-07, 01:29 PM For melee. For ranged attacks (including reach attacks), you must target the entire space.

(For explicit precedent, see the minis rules, which use the same diagrams and explicitly require the entire space to be targeted)
Actually, there is. Imagine each creature's space as a cube. Draw two lines from the top of the great wyrm's cube to the bottom front corners of the target's cube. At least one of those lines will intersect the gnome's cube.

Except isn't the creature taking up multiple spaces? I see now way any kind of obsticle that isn't very large indeed is going to help anyone against the great wyrm's attacks. The great wyrm is so large that its ability to attack from around the gnome is completely unhindered, especially is attacking in a downward swipe and not a VERY, and I mean very low swipe.

Are you sure that is how the rules work for creatures taking up multiple sqares?
SephDragoon
05-22-07, 01:45 PM Ok, so what you are trying to say is this... the creature would have cover from the little M here (small creatures and medium take up same space, so using it for now), even though it is our big G over there. And the cover is from our L, our large sized fighter, or visa versa. So because the space is occupied by the little guy, there is cover.
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3874/spacetospace1fy7.jpg

And what I am trying to say is that because they are so large, they can go from any sqare to any sqare, completely circumventing our little gnome friend.
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1117/spacetospace2eg3.jpghttp://img472.imageshack.us/img472/1197/spacetospace3oy7.jpg

The first there being the more obvious for the fighter, whose reach is smaller, and the second being a possible object for say our dragon.

You see, I see it the same way as if they were further apart. They aren't granted cover because they only have the reach to attack some of the enemy's squares. You don't have to be able to attack the entire creature to attack it unhindered.
Arem_K
05-22-07, 02:05 PM Soft cover is great. There is nothing like a wizard using his rat familiar as cover so that no one can take an AoO against him.
mvincent
05-22-07, 02:34 PM Soft cover is great. There is nothing like a wizard using his rat familiar as cover so that no one can take an AoO against him.While the rules don't explicitly cover the minimum height for a low obstacle, certainly there must be such. I do not believe one could consider a rat to be a low obstacle for a medium creature.

Since low obstacles are evidently about half your height, it seems reasonable to rule that any creature one size smaller is low cover, but any creature smaller than that is not cover ('long' creatures count as one size smaller for this purpose).
SephDragoon
05-22-07, 03:42 PM Soft cover is great. There is nothing like a wizard using his rat familiar as cover so that no one can take an AoO against him.

Then again, there is nothing like one shotting the rat familiar to make the wizard loose a level. Just saying... :P
Nom
05-22-07, 08:52 PM Ok, so what you are trying to say is this... the creature would have cover from the little M here (small creatures and medium take up same space, so using it for now), even though it is our big G over there. And the cover is from our L, our large sized fighter, or visa versa. So because the space is occupied by the little guy, there is cover.
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3874/spacetospace1fy7.jpgYep, this is the correct diagram for non-adjacent targets. Like mvincent, I'd rule that the medium creature is too low (compared to G) to count as a low wall for the L->G attacks, but it works just fine for G->L.
And what I am trying to say is that because they are so large, they can go from any sqare to any sqare, completely circumventing our little gnome friend.
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1117/spacetospace2eg3.jpg
http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/1197/spacetospace3oy7.jpg

...

You don't have to be able to attack the entire creature to attack it unhindered.RAW, ranged attacks do.

You also seem to be assuming that cover is a passive thing. It's not; it's active. Given the opportunity of messing up the opponent's attacks, the large creature will put as many of his vitals behind the cover as possible. It's not perfect, but it's enough to make him harder to hit.

3.0 had varying degrees of cover. 3.5 simplifies this down to just 3: none, cover, and total cover, with a special allowance for Improved Cover (+8 AC) when dealing with "almost total cover" like arrow slits.
Amurayi
05-23-07, 10:55 AM Which brings me back to the original question:
Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach?

It has been stated that reach weapon are treated like ranged weapons when it comes to determining cover = from one point of your base corner you must be able to draw a clear line to all the corners of the enemys base.

If this is the same for melee reach then it's clear.

Otherwise...well... otherwise the Rules Compendium will clear up some things.
Amurayi
05-23-07, 11:19 AM Also: The soft cover rules do not apply here. You might have an outdated PHB if it still says so. From the errata:

Soft Cover
Player's Handbook, page 151
Player's Handbook v.3.5 Errata 02/17/2006

Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee
attacks.
In the first sentence of the paragraph, change “melee” to
“ranged.”

This would basically mean that creatures NEVER give cover against melee attacks (natural reach or not) unless the attacker uses a reach weapon.

Does this make sense?
mvincent
05-23-07, 12:59 PM Which brings me back to the original question:
Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach?From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover):
"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."
mvincent
05-23-07, 01:01 PM This would basically mean that creatures NEVER give cover against melee attacksSee above post
Amurayi
05-23-07, 06:14 PM From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover):
"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 is correct. But creatures still don't give cover for melee attacks as they are soft covers. You should have quoted the whole paragraph and it will become clearer imho:

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). 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 means they are talking about the difference how to determine possible interruptions.
Melee attacks: all lines from attacker's bast must go freely to all parts of enemy base
Ranged attacks: from one corner from attacker's base all lines must go freely to all parts of enemy base
Toki_Wartooth
05-23-07, 06:29 PM But creatures still don't give cover for melee attacks as they are soft covers.You appear to be incorrect (and I believe confused).

You should have quoted the whole paragraph and it will become clearer imho:Let's try again:
"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). 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."

You seem to be putting emphasis on "melee attack" when you should be emphasizing "adjacent".
Vegepygmy
05-23-07, 09:00 PM But creatures still don't give cover for melee attacks as they are soft covers.I don't know if this will clear up what's confusing you, but it's all I have time for at the moment. From "Ask Wizards" (8/22/06):

Q: You determine cover with a reach weapon using the rules for ranged weapons. In the errata it says that cover from creatures (referred to as soft cover) only applies to ranged weapons. Does this mean that soft cover does or does not apply to weapons with reach?

A: Wait a minute, this was the question for 08/02! That's right, and the answer we provided was wrong, wrong, wrong. For which, we apologize--and extend the following, correct answer (courtesy of R&D's Andy Collins):

For purposes of determining cover, melee reach attacks use the rules for ranged attacks. Thus, soft cover applies to melee reach attacks (since it normally applies to ranged attacks).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Amurayi 05-21-07, 04:46 AM	Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach? It would seem strange to me that a gnome standing between a Great Old Wyrm and another character gives +4 cover on AC to that character. The question always comes up when PCs enlarge themselves and stand behind their comrades to attack the creatures in front.
Kouk 05-21-07, 06:10 AM	That's a tricky one that I don't think the rules address. I would consider a normal sized (medium) creature to be about half cover for a large: tall or bigger creature. Similar to a human attacking over a low wall. Cover is relative, so you have to use your judgement a lot of the time. Normal +4 for a large: long or similar creature. They are large, but still low to the ground. They often don't have reach anyway.
Vegepygmy 05-21-07, 12:50 PM	Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach?Yes. It would seem strange to me that a gnome standing between a Great Old Wyrm and another character gives +4 cover on AC to that character.The advantage the Great Old Wyrm has in this situation is that it can choose to make the attack from a corner of its space that perhaps does not provide the gnome with cover. If the GOW can't do so, I don't see why it would "seem strange" to you that the gnome would gain some benefit (and it's not like a measly +4 to AC is much protection from a GOW) from cowering behind another person whom the GOW is evidently reluctant to just rip into shreds.
RavenDrake 05-21-07, 12:53 PM	Actually I would use the "Low Obstacles and Cover" rule for this: Low Obstacles and Cover A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target. If the player is one or more squares behind the person they're trying claim cover from, and the attacker is closer to thier covering person(and at least twice as tall) then the attacker can ignore them for cover purposes. Edit: Edited for clarity in the example.
jaelis 05-21-07, 01:11 PM	Actually I would use the "Low Obstacles and Cover" rule for this: Me too.
SephDragoon 05-21-07, 02:13 PM	You see, this is where I start thinking 3 dimensionally... and start taking into account verticle space (like flying etc). THe Great Wyrm also has spaces that are like... 50 feet in the air. From one of those spaces to the creature behind the gnome, there is nothing blocking it. Same principle as what was described by Vegepygmy, but using his height in space as well. Frankly, I know it is harder to think of things in 3d, which is why most of the time they don't cover it in the books, but thinking of it like that usually makes the rules easier to understand for stuff like this.
mvincent 05-21-07, 02:18 PM	use the "Low Obstacles and Cover" rule for thisAgreed. It has been established in older discussions that cover can be both low and soft at the same time.
mvincent 05-21-07, 02:23 PM	You see, this is where I start thinking 3 dimensionally... and start taking into account verticle space (like flying etc). THe Great Wyrm also has spaces that are like... 50 feet in the air. From one of those spaces to the creature behind the gnome, there is nothing blocking it.That line of thinking would also imply that the wyrm would get no benefit from being 75% behind cover (because you could still target one of its squares that is not behind cover). That is not how D&D works though.
Kouk 05-21-07, 02:37 PM	That line of thinking would also imply that the wyrm would get no benefit from being 75% behind cover (because you could still target one of its squares that is not behind cover). That is not how D&D works though. 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. If it is sticking out, then it isn't hiding very well. It only gets cover for the parts that are behind cover. Low Obstacles sounds good.
SephDragoon 05-21-07, 02:48 PM	That line of thinking would also imply that the wyrm would get no benefit from being 75% behind cover (because you could still target one of its squares that is not behind cover). That is not how D&D works though. Kind of is by the quote above. Sorry buddy. Besides, you have to realize, the smaller creature has to have a weapon that can reach that far. If he does, then well, the fact that a giant dragon head is sticking out doesn't really help the dragon much. It is a very big target.
Nom 05-21-07, 07:49 PM	If it is sticking out, then it isn't hiding very well. It only gets cover for the parts that are behind cover.For melee. For ranged attacks (including reach attacks), you must target the entire space. (For explicit precedent, see the minis rules, which use the same diagrams and explicitly require the entire space to be targeted) THe Great Wyrm also has spaces that are like... 50 feet in the air. From one of those spaces to the creature behind the gnome, there is nothing blocking it.Actually, there is. Imagine each creature's space as a cube. Draw two lines from the top of the great wyrm's cube to the bottom front corners of the target's cube. At least one of those lines will intersect the gnome's cube.
Amurayi 05-22-07, 05:20 AM	I don't see why you recommend to apply the low obstacle rule. Low Obstacles and Cover A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target. Let's say an enlarged Fighter with a longsword stands behind his gnome fired and directly behind the gnome (adjecent) the enemy. The gnome might be a "low obstacle" but the enemy is at the same distance to the gnome so the fighter can't ignore it. Thus the enemy gets +4 cover, no?
RavenDrake 05-22-07, 12:30 PM	Let's say an enlarged Fighter with a longsword stands behind his gnome fired and directly behind the gnome (adjecent) the enemy. The gnome might be a "low obstacle" but the enemy is at the same distance to the gnome so the fighter can't ignore it. Thus the enemy gets +4 cover, no? Yes. That's how the rules say it works, whether it's a wall or a gnome in the way, it's still low cover. It's soft cover(and uses the soft cover rules) but still qualifies as Low Cover.
Vegepygmy 05-22-07, 12:30 PM	I don't see why you recommend to apply the low obstacle rule.Because it fits. Let's say an enlarged Fighter with a longsword stands behind his gnome fired and directly behind the gnome (adjecent) the enemy. The gnome might be a "low obstacle"...And that's why you should apply the low obstacle rule. ...but the enemy is at the same distance to the gnome so the fighter can't ignore it. Thus the enemy gets +4 cover, no?Just because you aren't getting the result you expected, doesn't mean the rule isn't applicable.
mvincent 05-22-07, 12:37 PM	Kind of is by the quote above. Sorry buddy. 'Buddy'? Besides being incorrect, you are now being rude again. Edit: removed some uneeded text.
SephDragoon 05-22-07, 01:29 PM	For melee. For ranged attacks (including reach attacks), you must target the entire space. (For explicit precedent, see the minis rules, which use the same diagrams and explicitly require the entire space to be targeted) Actually, there is. Imagine each creature's space as a cube. Draw two lines from the top of the great wyrm's cube to the bottom front corners of the target's cube. At least one of those lines will intersect the gnome's cube. Except isn't the creature taking up multiple spaces? I see now way any kind of obsticle that isn't very large indeed is going to help anyone against the great wyrm's attacks. The great wyrm is so large that its ability to attack from around the gnome is completely unhindered, especially is attacking in a downward swipe and not a VERY, and I mean very low swipe. Are you sure that is how the rules work for creatures taking up multiple sqares?
SephDragoon 05-22-07, 01:45 PM	Ok, so what you are trying to say is this... the creature would have cover from the little M here (small creatures and medium take up same space, so using it for now), even though it is our big G over there. And the cover is from our L, our large sized fighter, or visa versa. So because the space is occupied by the little guy, there is cover. http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3874/spacetospace1fy7.jpg And what I am trying to say is that because they are so large, they can go from any sqare to any sqare, completely circumventing our little gnome friend. http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1117/spacetospace2eg3.jpghttp://img472.imageshack.us/img472/1197/spacetospace3oy7.jpg The first there being the more obvious for the fighter, whose reach is smaller, and the second being a possible object for say our dragon. You see, I see it the same way as if they were further apart. They aren't granted cover because they only have the reach to attack some of the enemy's squares. You don't have to be able to attack the entire creature to attack it unhindered.
Arem_K 05-22-07, 02:05 PM	Soft cover is great. There is nothing like a wizard using his rat familiar as cover so that no one can take an AoO against him.
mvincent 05-22-07, 02:34 PM	Soft cover is great. There is nothing like a wizard using his rat familiar as cover so that no one can take an AoO against him.While the rules don't explicitly cover the minimum height for a low obstacle, certainly there must be such. I do not believe one could consider a rat to be a low obstacle for a medium creature. Since low obstacles are evidently about half your height, it seems reasonable to rule that any creature one size smaller is low cover, but any creature smaller than that is not cover ('long' creatures count as one size smaller for this purpose).
SephDragoon 05-22-07, 03:42 PM	Soft cover is great. There is nothing like a wizard using his rat familiar as cover so that no one can take an AoO against him. Then again, there is nothing like one shotting the rat familiar to make the wizard loose a level. Just saying... :P
Nom 05-22-07, 08:52 PM	Ok, so what you are trying to say is this... the creature would have cover from the little M here (small creatures and medium take up same space, so using it for now), even though it is our big G over there. And the cover is from our L, our large sized fighter, or visa versa. So because the space is occupied by the little guy, there is cover. http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/3874/spacetospace1fy7.jpgYep, this is the correct diagram for non-adjacent targets. Like mvincent, I'd rule that the medium creature is too low (compared to G) to count as a low wall for the L->G attacks, but it works just fine for G->L. And what I am trying to say is that because they are so large, they can go from any sqare to any sqare, completely circumventing our little gnome friend. http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1117/spacetospace2eg3.jpg http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/1197/spacetospace3oy7.jpg ... You don't have to be able to attack the entire creature to attack it unhindered.RAW, ranged attacks do. You also seem to be assuming that cover is a passive thing. It's not; it's active. Given the opportunity of messing up the opponent's attacks, the large creature will put as many of his vitals behind the cover as possible. It's not perfect, but it's enough to make him harder to hit. 3.0 had varying degrees of cover. 3.5 simplifies this down to just 3: none, cover, and total cover, with a special allowance for Improved Cover (+8 AC) when dealing with "almost total cover" like arrow slits.
Amurayi 05-23-07, 10:55 AM	Which brings me back to the original question: Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach? It has been stated that reach weapon are treated like ranged weapons when it comes to determining cover = from one point of your base corner you must be able to draw a clear line to all the corners of the enemys base. If this is the same for melee reach then it's clear. Otherwise...well... otherwise the Rules Compendium will clear up some things.
Amurayi 05-23-07, 11:19 AM	Also: The soft cover rules do not apply here. You might have an outdated PHB if it still says so. From the errata: Soft Cover Player's Handbook, page 151 Player's Handbook v.3.5 Errata 02/17/2006 Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks. In the first sentence of the paragraph, change “melee” to “ranged.” This would basically mean that creatures NEVER give cover against melee attacks (natural reach or not) unless the attacker uses a reach weapon. Does this make sense?
mvincent 05-23-07, 12:59 PM	Which brings me back to the original question: Do the same "cover" rules of reach weapons apply for large and bigger creatures with melee reach?From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover): "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."
mvincent 05-23-07, 01:01 PM	This would basically mean that creatures NEVER give cover against melee attacksSee above post
Amurayi 05-23-07, 06:14 PM	From the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover): "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 is correct. But creatures still don't give cover for melee attacks as they are soft covers. You should have quoted the whole paragraph and it will become clearer imho: 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). 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 means they are talking about the difference how to determine possible interruptions. Melee attacks: all lines from attacker's bast must go freely to all parts of enemy base Ranged attacks: from one corner from attacker's base all lines must go freely to all parts of enemy base
Toki_Wartooth 05-23-07, 06:29 PM	But creatures still don't give cover for melee attacks as they are soft covers.You appear to be incorrect (and I believe confused). You should have quoted the whole paragraph and it will become clearer imho:Let's try again: "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). 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." You seem to be putting emphasis on "melee attack" when you should be emphasizing "adjacent".
Vegepygmy 05-23-07, 09:00 PM	But creatures still don't give cover for melee attacks as they are soft covers.I don't know if this will clear up what's confusing you, but it's all I have time for at the moment. From "Ask Wizards" (8/22/06): Q: You determine cover with a reach weapon using the rules for ranged weapons. In the errata it says that cover from creatures (referred to as soft cover) only applies to ranged weapons. Does this mean that soft cover does or does not apply to weapons with reach? A: Wait a minute, this was the question for 08/02! That's right, and the answer we provided was wrong, wrong, wrong. For which, we apologize--and extend the following, correct answer (courtesy of R&D's Andy Collins): For purposes of determining cover, melee reach attacks use the rules for ranged attacks. Thus, soft cover applies to melee reach attacks (since it normally applies to ranged attacks).