Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dragonmage74 03-13-07, 02:05 PM	I'm hoping someone on the boards can help me with the mechanics of Elusive Target in Living Greyhawk. Negate Power Attack seems pretty straightfoward. The PC designates an opponent that's the focus of the Dodge feat. If opponent Power Attacks and hits, the Power Attack bonus is negated. Diverting Defense is a bit of a head scratcher. The PC is flanked and chooses a Dodge target. The designated Dodge target attacks, automatically misses the PC, and possibly catches the other flanker flatfooted (if the AC hits)? Does the flatfooted flanker get "soft cover"? What if the Dodge target doesn't have a "reach" weapon? Does it still hit the flatfooted flanker (if the AC hits)? Cause Overreach seems pretty straightforward. But how does it work if the weapon used isn't normally used to trip, such as a Dwarven Waraxe? Thanks.
thorinXXX 03-13-07, 04:01 PM	1st is straight forward 2nd expect table variation, but pretty much expect it not to work without opponent having a reach weapon. 3rd you are not making an attack, so weapon is irrelevant. Do not expect too many people to allow a follow up attack from Improved Trip, beacuse you have not made an attack. Also, the size restriction on who you can trip has not been waived.
Timlagor 03-13-07, 04:03 PM	The rules are a bit vague on these. Below is how I would rule it but you should probably expect the dreaded table variation: 1) I would not grant soft cover in this particular instance but a judge would be entitled to do so. 2) I would not require the attacker to actually threaten his buddy so long as he threatened the Elusive Target 3) You don't make a trip attack, you make a trip *attempt* which - does not require a touch attack - is not affected by the weapon you are wielding (even if it would normally grant you bonuses) - does not allow a follow-up attack from Improved Trip if successful (you do get the +4 on the check) I believe this last is a pretty common ruling but would not expect it to be universal.
Gwumph 03-14-07, 02:10 AM	OK I tackled ET (Elusive Target) for the first time as a DM last night. Can someone please exlpain how it all works. Defeat power attack.... OK I get it. Cause overreach.... Ok I get that 1 too. Now Diverting Defense??????? Do I ignore the RAW and allow a dagger to have 10ft reach?? Do I ignore the RAW and ignore soft cover penalties??? In my opinion you must follow the RAW, If the weapon cannot reach 10ft, then it cannot reach 10ft. Now if the creature has a 10ft reach, the book says it makes an normal attack roll!!! That would mean if there is soft cover between it and it's target (the flanking friend) then soft cover penalty should apply. Does anyone know of a FAQ that addresses this??? or a DC or maybe a letter from customer service. Any idea on how to adjuicate?? Cheers Gwumph
Timlagor 03-14-07, 03:26 PM	I don't know of any official clarification. I have explained how I would adjudicate it above. The ET text is part of the RAW and Feats routinely overturn other parts of the rules: that's the whole point of them.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-14-07, 03:48 PM	OK I tackled ET (Elusive Target) for the first time as a DM last night. Can someone please exlpain how it all works. Defeat power attack.... OK I get it. Cause overreach.... Ok I get that 1 too. Now Diverting Defense??????? Do I ignore the RAW and allow a dagger to have 10ft reach?? Do I ignore the RAW and ignore soft cover penalties??? In my opinion you must follow the RAW, If the weapon cannot reach 10ft, then it cannot reach 10ft. Now if the creature has a 10ft reach, the book says it makes an normal attack roll!!! That would mean if there is soft cover between it and it's target (the flanking friend) then soft cover penalty should apply. Does anyone know of a FAQ that addresses this??? or a DC or maybe a letter from customer service. Any idea on how to adjuicate?? Cheers Gwumph There's no soft cover for melee weapons, reach or otherwise. SO the only issue with diverting defense is whether to go with the letter of the rules or the spirit of the rules. Thif of it this way: If diverting defense only worked if the flanking bad guys could reach each other, it would almost NEVER be useable, since the most common way of getting reach is with a reach weapon, so the flankers wouldn't be adjacent to the flanked character and therefore wouldn't threaten each other anway. So in order for the ability to be useable at all (with the rare exception of spikes chains or natural reach), you MUST ignore the fact that the flanking characters do not actually threaten each other, and simply take the diverting defense at face value.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 03:52 PM	There's no soft cover for melee weapons, reach or otherwise. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover 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 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. So yes, there can be 'soft' cover from melee weapons.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-14-07, 04:00 PM	http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover So yes, there can be 'soft' cover from melee weapons. You use the rules for determining cover. So you look to see if there is, and then you determine what type of cover it is. If it's soft cover, it doesn't apply, because soft cover doesn't apply to melee attacks.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 04:09 PM	You use the rules for determining cover. So you look to see if there is, and then you determine what type of cover it is. If it's soft cover, it doesn't apply, because soft cover doesn't apply to melee attacks. You have a quote for me saying this? I'm looking but I can't find 'soft cover doesn't apply to melee attacks.' The only definition of soft cover I can find is this: Soft Cover Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check. No mention is made of melee attacks.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 04:13 PM	You have a quote for me saying this? I'm looking but I can't find 'soft cover doesn't apply to melee attacks.' The only definition of soft cover I can find is this: No mention is made of melee attacks. It's been in the PHB errata since 2004. And diverting defense doesn't require a reach weapon, otherwise it would be almost useless. Because if they had reach weapons, then they'd be 5 foot further back, and it would still be an issue. It would only apply to natural reach monsters who closed further than they had to and spiked chain wielders. Since that seems an unnecessary addition of a lot of interpretive crap, just treat it as it's written :D The attack applies to the flanker, who is considered flatfooted. It doesn't mention movement, so they don't move, it doesn't mention a necessity of reach, so it doesn't require reach, etc.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 04:14 PM	It's been in the PHB errata since 2004. I guess that serves me right for assuming d20SRD.org had incorporated all errata. Thanks. *prints it out to bring to GMs who may rule otherwise in the future.* Edit: I think they need an errata on the errata though, as even with the changes 'reach melee' determines cover like ranged attacks do. And ranged attacks use soft cover.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 04:19 PM	I guess that serves me right for assuming d20SRD.org had incorporated all errata. Thanks. *prints it out to bring to GMs who may rule otherwise in the future.* Serves you right for using the SRD at all :D The SRD is not and official rules source for LG. Using it is fine for reference, but if you're hammering out a rules issue, everyone should be using the core books and their most up to date errata. Edit: I think they need an errata on the errata though, as even with the changes 'reach melee' determines cover like ranged attacks do. And ranged attacks use soft cover. Nope. Reach melee works like this: Person in the way + ranged rules = Soft Cover. Soft cover + melee attack = ignore the cover. As Jay mentioned above. Indeed, there is cover, but a reach melee attack is still a melee attack, and since it's soft cover, it's irrelevant (we went through this a month or so ago, the board needs a search function :D)
Redfist 03-14-07, 04:21 PM	Serves you right for using the SRD at all :D The SRD is not and official rules source for LG. Using it is fine for reference, but if you're hammering out a rules issue, everyone should be using the core books and their most up to date errata. *applauds* I never use SRD because I can't count on it's accuracy.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 04:22 PM	Serves you right for using the SRD at all :D The SRD is not and official rules source for LG. Using it is fine for reference, but if you're hammering out a rules issue, everyone should be using the core books and their most up to date errata. Heh, the SRD is searchable. And when I use it, I make sure it is apparent I am using it. And it turns out the SRD is updated with the errata but see below... Reach melee works like this: Person in the way + ranged rules = Soft Cover. Soft cover + melee attack = ignore the cover. As Jay mentioned above. Indeed, there is cover, but a reach melee attack is still a melee attack, and since it's soft cover, it's irrelevant (we went through this a month or so ago, the board needs a search function :D) Oh, I quite understand at this point. The problem is that the errata'd text *still* leaves room for soft cover working in melee. Its the errata document itself that states that soft cover doesn't apply. For example, my PHB does have the errata in it, and makes no mention of melee not using soft cover.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 04:24 PM	...
King Kashue 03-14-07, 04:44 PM	Oh, I quite understand at this point. The problem is that the errata'd text *still* leaves room for soft cover working in melee. Its the errata document itself that states that soft cover doesn't apply. For example, my PHB does have the errata in it, and makes no mention of melee not using soft cover. But the errata itself is a rules document. It alters the text, and makes explicit the reason for altering it. The changed text says: "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks" Now, if we take that line entirely out of context, we can say "it leaves room for soft cover working in melee"...It's a bad argument, since if it didn't want to make a distinction, it would have just said "attacks" in general. But taken in context with the fact it was errataed, and the fact the errata explicitly states the reasoning for the change as being "Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks." It's an exceedingly weak argument to say "the rule is unclear"...
bitznarf 03-14-07, 04:47 PM	I'm not saying the rules are unclear. I'm not saying the errata document is not a rules document. I'm saying that if one checks the errata'd PHB but not the errata document itself (a reasonable action IMO), such a conclusion could be drawn. Silly WotC.
Samwise 03-14-07, 04:58 PM	If we take it in context, we must also take into context the line: 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." That is very clear that it shifts the melee attack to functioning as a ranged attack for the purpose of determining cover. That means the cover exists and the modifier applies. This is made even more explicit here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060822a Soft cover applies to melee reach weapons.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 05:00 PM	If we take it in context, we must also take into context the line: 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." That is very clear that it shifts the melee attack to functioning as a ranged attack for the purpose of determining cover. That means the cover exists and the modifier applies. This is made even more explicit here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060822a Soft cover applies to melee reach weapons. Well, technically this is not a LG legal source. Still its good to know that I was indeed correct. At least, in a home setting.
Samwise 03-14-07, 05:14 PM	Well, technically this is not a LG legal source. Still its good to know that I was indeed correct. At least, in a home setting. You are correct in Living Greyhawk as well. It is very simple. For purposes of cover a melee reach attack is treated as a ranged attack. Are ranged attacks affected by soft cover? Yes. The only parsing is if you want to ignore the qualifier of melee reach attacks. It does not. Only that specific subset of melee attacks are treated as ranged attacks, and only for the purposes of soft cover. Yes, the errata does change something. Without it, soft cover applies only to melee attacks and not ranged attacks or melee reach attacks.
Lupo 03-14-07, 05:16 PM	I don't know of any official clarification. I have explained how I would adjudicate it above. The ET text is part of the RAW and Feats routinely overturn other parts of the rules: that's the whole point of them. the problem is the double standard for elusive target and close quarter fighting.:rolleyes: both feats are written - at least with some way of interpreting them - to cause or allow a combatant to hit a creature someway out of its "normal" reach. while the FAQ has denied the close quarter fighting feat this ability - only hinting an alternative rule for some attackers - that is not used in LG.:mad: but the FAQ is quite on the elusive target feat that allows a kobold with a dagger to hit another kobold on the other side of an enlarged fighter.:confused: as usual WotC is famous for the quality of its rules item editing process and swiftness to publish dire needed errata and FAQs :P ciao martin m.
JamesMaissen 03-14-07, 05:36 PM	You are correct in Living Greyhawk as well. It is very simple. For purposes of cover a melee reach attack is treated as a ranged attack. I'm sorry, I've got this a bit confused. Does the errata say exactly this, or does it merely say that we 'determine cover' using the ranged attack rules? If it's the later then while soft cover may be determined to exist for a melee reach weapon, it's still just soft cover, right? Or am I missing something between these two arguements? -James
Samwise 03-14-07, 05:40 PM	I'm sorry, I've got this a bit confused. Does the errata say exactly this, or does it merely say that we 'determine cover' using the ranged attack rules? If it's the later then while soft cover may be determined to exist for a melee reach weapon, it's still just soft cover, right? Or am I missing something between these two arguements? -James The errata changes the line about soft saying saying it applies to melee attacks and not ranged attacks. The original text, which has not been changed, says that melee reach attacks are treated as ranged attacks when determining cover. So yes, it is still soft cover, but it applies to the attack with the melee reach weapon.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 06:06 PM	Well, technically this is not a LG legal source. Indeed. It is not a rules source for LG.
Samwise 03-14-07, 06:08 PM	It doesn't have to be a rules source for LG, the PHB is quite clear. It does however clearly establish the intent of the rule, and I'd consider anyone arguing it with me at a table to be cheating.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 06:11 PM	It doesn't have to be a rules source for LG, the PHB is quite clear. It does however clearly establish the intent of the rule, and I'd consider anyone arguing it with me at a table to be cheating. Disagreement with your interpretation = cheating? Interesting perspective.
Samwise 03-14-07, 06:16 PM	Disagreement with your interpretation = cheating? Interesting perspective. Disagreement with a direct statement from WotC R&D = cheating. And there is no "(my) interpretation." The rule is clear. Thinking that because you can parse some statement to the opposite of what is written /= cheating? Not a very interesting perspective, though a very common one.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 06:28 PM	Disagreement with a direct statement from WotC R&D = cheating. Ah, but as stated multiple times on this board, WotC statements are not official unless in one of the officially recognized sources... And there is no "(my) interpretation." The rule is clear. Thinking that because you can parse some statement to the opposite of what is written /= cheating? Not a very interesting perspective, though a very common one. What I also find interesting is that we had this very same conversation a month ago, and it was resolved with the recognition that the rule as written is not definitive nor clear and that only through using the non-official source was a general determination reached... Everyone in that conversation phrased things as their opinions, and somehow we all got through it without accusing anyone else of cheating... Of course, it should be noted, that conversation didn't include you...
Samwise 03-14-07, 06:39 PM	Ah, but as stated multiple times on this board, WotC statements are not official unless in one of the officially recognized sources... I didn't say official, I said direct. And whether it is official or not is irrelevant, the rule itself is still clear. What I also find interesting is that we had this very same conversation a month ago, and it was resolved with the recognition that the rule as written is not definitive nor clear and that only through using the non-official source was a general determination reached... So that discussion is supposed to be official and binding? That's an "interesting perspective." Everyone in that conversation phrased things as their opinions, and somehow we all got through it without accusing anyone else of cheating... Of course, it should be noted, that conversation didn't include you... So I'm not supposed to cite Andy Collins and WotC R&D when discussing the rules? That's an extremely "interesting perspective." And deliberately misrepresenting the rules is cheating, whether someone says it openly or not. Do you think that if no one says it it means it isn't cheating? Wow, that's three very "interesting perspectives."
bitznarf 03-14-07, 06:43 PM	*gets out some water* Perhaps this will help some. When asked in the LG Questions/Answers thread about 'secondary' sources of rules/rulings that come from WotC, Britt said that while they are not binding on a GM, they are good sources of information. Well here: Okay, the Circle doesn't make rulings on general D&D rules questions. (should have read your answers to similar questions) That's important for us all to remember. However, rules ambiguities (like the ones asked in this thread) do crop up, so a reliable 3rd-party resource for official answers is helpful. I know that the D&D FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) is listed in the LGCS as an official answer source, but does the Circle sanction any others? Do any of the following count as official rulings for LGCS? (LGCS clarifications/errata will still take precedence) Rules of the Game Archive (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg) Knowledge Base (http://wizards.custhelp.com/) RPGA Customer Service (http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/acct_login.php) (individual questions) No, only the official sources in the LGCS are binding authorities. Other sources can be used by your GM for guidance at his discretion, but he is not bound by them.
Gallaway 03-14-07, 06:44 PM	In many cases rules arguments occur because people genuinely disagree about the rules and that clearly is not "cheating". That seems to be the case here. On the other hand some people see extracting every possible advantage from the rules as good competitive play and fun. If such a player genuinely knows they are using a badly worded interpretation to go against the elsewhere published intent of the rule, is fully aware that its likely to be ruled the otherway in an errata, but insist on bullying a DM claiming that until an errata comes out the RAW interpretation they favor must apply .. then we are approaching cheating.
Samwise 03-14-07, 06:50 PM	On the other hand some people see extracting every possible advantage from the rules as good competitive play and fun. If such a player genuinely knows they are using a badly worded interpretation to go against the elsewhere published intent of the rule, is fully aware that its likely to be ruled the otherway in an errata, but insist on bullying a DM claiming that until an errata comes out the RAW interpretation they favor must apply .. then we are approaching cheating. Exactly. But apparently we aren't supposed to say that.
Jay_Ibero_911 03-14-07, 06:52 PM	In many cases rules arguments occur because people genuinely disagree about the rules and that clearly is not "cheating". That seems to be the case here. On the other hand some people see extracting every possible advantage from the rules as good competitive play and fun. If such a player genuinely knows they are using a badly worded interpretation to go against the elsewhere published intent of the rule, is fully aware that its likely to be ruled the otherway in an errata, but insist on bullying a DM claiming that until an errata comes out the RAW interpretation they favor must apply .. then we are approaching cheating. Approaching yes. But cheating is the actual breaking of a rule. In order to determine if a rule is broken, you first must have a complete understanding of the rule to begin with, and that is where so many problems arise...
King Kashue 03-14-07, 07:11 PM	So I'm not supposed to cite Andy Collins and WotC R&D when discussing the rules? That's an extremely "interesting perspective." No, it got cited in the other discussion as well. And again, it somehow got cited with the acknowledgment it isn't officially binding, and thus provides only a good guide for determining things, and it got accepted into the discussion without anyone declaring the matter closed...Funny that... You say the rule as written is completely clear...Everyone in the other thread didn't think so, everyone on both sides. It was only with the Ask Wizards section was brought up that everyone decided that was the best interpretation of the unclear rules section...But you know, whatever, it's perfectly and entirely clear as written... Which is of course why it gets discussed every month or so and why a large number of people misinterpret it, you know, because it's so clear...
JamesMaissen 03-14-07, 08:10 PM	The errata changes the line about soft saying saying it applies to melee attacks and not ranged attacks. The original text, which has not been changed, says that melee reach attacks are treated as ranged attacks when determining cover. So yes, it is still soft cover, but it applies to the attack with the melee reach weapon. Okay.. so let me get all of my ducks in a row and make sure I get this, as it seems confusing to many people (other than yourself). I've thought I had it a few times, but want to nail it down once and for all. 1. "Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks." from PhB Errata. 2. "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" PhB 151 These are the facts that are not being disputed, right? So where is the error with the following arguement that has been brought forth here and other places: When attacking with a melee weapon against someone that's not adjacent to the attacker you use the rules for *determining* cover from ranged attacks, but as normal soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Isn't this a reasonable concatenation of the two quoted passages? I'm having trouble seeing the obvious flaw to it and hence why I'm currently confused. So why is this wrong? I've flip flopped on this a few times now and want to get the darn thing right. -James
bitznarf 03-14-07, 08:14 PM	So why is this wrong? I've flip flopped on this a few times now and want to get the darn thing right. -James Because when WotC wrote the PHB errata, they failed to dot their i's and cross their t's. When all is taken in context outside of LG, soft cover applies to melee reach attacks. In LG its DM's discretion as the 'Ask Wizards' answers are not binding.
Samwise 03-14-07, 08:20 PM	When attacking with a melee weapon against someone that's not adjacent to the attacker you use the rules for *determining* cover from ranged attacks, but as normal soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Isn't this a reasonable concatenation of the two quoted passages? I'm having trouble seeing the obvious flaw to it and hence why I'm currently confused. So why is this wrong? I've flip flopped on this a few times now and want to get the darn thing right. -James No, it is not reasonable. Of what possible purpose could it be to determine if soft cover exists if the modifier is not to be applied? Just to have something to do? If cover exists, a modifer is applied. There can be no question of that. Ranged attacks treat cover differently than melee attacks. There can be no question of that. Melee reach attacks are treated as ranged attacks for cover. There can be no question of that. There isn't much left to question after that.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 08:29 PM	No, it is not reasonable. Of what possible purpose could it be to determine if soft cover exists if the modifier is not to be applied? Just to have something to do? The difference in the rules between ranged and melee is not merely about soft vs. hard, in fact that's the least important difference. The entire mode of determination of what constitutes cover against a ranged attack is different than against a melee attack. Using the ranged rules but still ignoring soft cover does not make the difference irrelevant. Cover will still apply more often to reach weapons. That is the "possible purpose". Why is it so difficult to see when the rules issue becomes an interpretation issue? The rules issue is unclear. Add in the Ask Wizards entry, and the likely interpretation becomes clear (though not certain, since it is still a guide, and thus interpretive). And just a final note: Melee reach attacks are treated as ranged attacks for cover. There can be no question of that. That is not what the rules say. The rules say you use the ranged cover rules to determine whether an non adjacent melee attack has cover. It does not say "non adjacent melee are treated as ranged attacks for cover". It could quite legitimately mean that you treat it as ranged for determining whether cover is present, then treated as a melee attack for the effects of the cover. However, the ask Wizards makes that an unlikely interpretation of intent...
Samwise 03-14-07, 08:33 PM	The difference in the rules between ranged and melee is not merely about soft vs. hard, in fact that's the least important difference. The entire mode of determination of what constitutes cover against a ranged attack is different than against a melee attack. Using the ranged rules but still ignoring soft cover does not make the difference irrelevant. Cover will still apply more often to reach weapons. That is the "possible purpose". Because if the modifier for soft cover is not applied, then determining that the cover exists is irrelevant. The only purpose for determining cover is determining if modifiers apply. Why is it so difficult to see when the rules issue becomes an interpretation issue? The rules issue is unclear. Add in the Ask Wizards entry, and the likely interpretation becomes clear (though not certain, since it is still a guide, and thus interpretive). The rule is not unclear. You can parse off the Ask Wizards entry as "not binding," but that does not change that it is in fact a definitive statement about what the rule means. Just because you are allowed to ignore that reference doesn't change that youa re deliberately misrepresenting the rule. You can not parse that away.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 08:47 PM	The rule is not unclear. You can parse off the Ask Wizards entry as "not binding," but that does not change that it is in fact a definitive statement about what the rule means. Just because you are allowed to ignore that reference doesn't change that youa re deliberately misrepresenting the rule. You can not parse that away. In my opinion Sam, not everything that WotC CustServ gives us is reliable. It is up to the DM to decide. If the DM feels that CustServ was/is wrong, that is his/her prerogative.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 09:11 PM	Because if the modifier for soft cover is not applied, then determining that the cover exists is irrelevant. The only purpose for determining cover is determining if modifiers apply. If it's hard cover, the modifiers do apply. There are situations in which the modifiers would apply, so saying it's irrelevant is utterly false. The rule is not unclear. You can parse off the Ask Wizards entry as "not binding," but that does not change that it is in fact a definitive statement about what the rule means. Just because you are allowed to ignore that reference doesn't change that youa re deliberately misrepresenting the rule. You can not parse that away. You like the word "parse", don't you?...You should get a better idea of it's meaning if you're going to use it as much as you do... And I'm not disregarding anything. I take the ask wizards entry into full consideration and apply the rule as it says in most situations. However, there is a difference between the explicit rule and most likely interpretation, and I'm not going to say the rule is clear when it isn't...If it was so bloody clear, ask wizards wouldn't have had to clarify it...And if it was so clear to begin with, they wouldn't have "clarified" it incorrectly to begin with... Seriously, you're saying that without the Ask Wizards, it's completely clear. Except when they were first asked a question about it, Ask Wizards gave the answer opposite to what you say is the utterly clear meaning...If it is so clear from the PHB alone, how did Wizards bollocks it up in the first answer?
Samwise 03-14-07, 09:13 PM	In my opinion Sam, not everything that WotC CustServ gives us is reliable. It is up to the DM to decide. If the DM feels that CustServ was/is wrong, that is his/her prerogative. And yet . . . Check that particular Ask Wizards entry. CustServ was in fact wrong and had to have it corrected directly by R&D. One would expect that to make it a somewhat more reliable answer. And one might expect that the "expansion" of that into a Sage Advice Online to go with more generic Ask Wizards questions shows they noted the need to have rules questions answered directly by the rules people. I've ranted about whacked out CustServ rulings just like the next person. I've unleashed a few very irked rants about how Sage Advice "seems" to contradict the RAW in various books that the Sage is listed as an R&D advisor on. You'd really think he'd see these issues while writing the danged thing. I have some understanding from the editing I've done, but it is still irksome. So yes, that answer from Andy Collins, who does the FAQ, and makes all these other rulings everyone hates is not in the "official" place for LG. I don't see how that changes the reality of its existence, or how it clarifies the intent of the rule if it is still unclear to anyone.
JamesMaissen 03-14-07, 09:25 PM	No, it is not reasonable. Of what possible purpose could it be to determine if soft cover exists if the modifier is not to be applied? Just to have something to do? Isn't there a mechanical difference in how cover is determined for adjacent targets and targets farther away? As I understand it: For making a ranged attack you pick a corner of your square and draw lines to each corner of the target's square. For making a melee attack on an adjacent target you must consider EVERY line from your square to the targets square. Isn't that a difference? For example if two combatants are diagonal to one another and one of the squares remaining of the square they form is a solid object (say a building) then each would have cover for a melee attack but not cover for a ranged attack. Right? If cover exists, a modifer is applied. There can be no question of that. Ranged attacks treat cover differently than melee attacks. There can be no question of that. Melee reach attacks are treated as ranged attacks for cover. There can be no question of that. There isn't much left to question after that. But there are questions. Now even when cover exists not all modifiers apply. For example it *is* clear that soft cover doesn't give the modifier to Reflex saves, right? So just because there is cover that doesn't mean that modifiers must apply. Ranged Attacks do treat some cover differently than melee attacks, which is the point the other side is making in the discussion. Did you instead mean determine? Melee reach attacks are still melee attacks, we are only specified in determining the cover like ranged attacks not in treating them that way. Actually, I'm not sure *why* it isn't clear that the other ruling is not valid. If either interpretation is clearly incorrect from the combination of Errata and PhB it appears to be yours. So what I am missing? -James
Samwise 03-14-07, 09:26 PM	If it's hard cover, the modifiers do apply. There are situations in which the modifiers would apply, so saying it's irrelevant is utterly false. Actually, that's not what the rule says: "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner 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)." No mention of "soft" cover in there at all. In fact . . . "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Hide check." So really, soft cover is something that can only affect your, the PC's, AC. It has nothing to do with a monster's AC against attacks from you. For those, any creature provides generic "cover," and the modifier applies. You like the word "parse", don't you?...You should get a better idea of it's meaning if you're going to use it as much as you do... So you aren't trying to analyze the role of specific words in these sentences? Odd, that certainly looks like what you are doing. Seriously, you're saying that without the Ask Wizards, it's completely clear. Except when they were first asked a question about it, Ask Wizards gave the answer opposite to what you say is the utterly clear meaning...If it is so clear from the PHB alone, how did Wizards bollocks it up in the first answer? Because they had a rules question and didn't ask R&D. That's pretty much a guaranteed way to eventually make a mistake.
Timlagor 03-14-07, 09:27 PM	IT's very clear which way this question will get clarified if it does. In the interests of reducing table variation I switched to Soft cover applying to reach weapons when that was published. People are still able to go with the other interpretation but I'd urge them not to.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 09:36 PM	So you aren't trying to analyze the role of specific words in these sentences? Odd, that certainly looks like what you are doing. Yes, but saying "Ask Wizards isn't an official LG source" isn't parsing a damn thing...It's a claim of fact, not a grammatical analysis...
Samwise 03-14-07, 09:40 PM	Isn't there a mechanical difference in how cover is determined for adjacent targets and targets farther away? Yes there is. But that doesn't change that the effects of cover, once determined, still apply. Again, see the section I quoted above. But there are questions. Now even when cover exists not all modifiers apply. For example it *is* clear that soft cover doesn't give the modifier to Reflex saves, right? So just because there is cover that doesn't mean that modifiers must apply. Well, I could say that soft cover is something only PCs benefit from, since the rule never says anything about applying such a distinction to attacks made by PCs. And yes, all the modifiers particular to that kind of cover apply. So if there is hard cover, all the modifiers of hard cover apply, and when there is soft cover, all the modifiers of soft cover apply. Ranged Attacks do treat some cover differently than melee attacks, which is the point the other side is making in the discussion. Did you instead mean determine? I don't instead mean determine, the rules say determine! Melee reach attacks are still melee attacks, we are only specified in determining the cover like ranged attacks not in treating them that way. And if you have determined that cover exists, a modifier is applied. That is how the rule for cover from ranged attacks reads, as a single sentence. So I expect that is what you are missing.
Samwise 03-14-07, 09:43 PM	Yes, but saying "Ask Wizards isn't an official LG source" isn't parsing a damn thing...It's a claim of fact, not a grammatical analysis... It is parsing to refer only to "official LG source" as opposed to taking into account the entire requirement to be work within the spirit of the rules, as well as to not misrepresent the rules in any way. You want to analyze one sentence, completely separate from any others.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 09:47 PM	It is parsing to refer only to "official LG source" as opposed to taking into account the entire requirement to be work within the spirit of the rules, as well as to not misrepresent the rules in any way. You want to analyze one sentence, completely separate from any others. How is reading thisNo, only the official sources in the LGCS are binding authorities. Other sources can be used by your GM for guidance at his discretion, but he is not bound by them.word for word 'analyzing one sentance completely separate from any others'?
Samwise 03-14-07, 09:51 PM	Because it doesn't address the other factors to be used in resolving rules issues, namely the spirit of the rules and not misrepresenting them. If you in fact have a positive statement about a rule and choose to misinterpret or misapply it anyway you are wrong. How many threads are there where people say outright they don't intend to enforce one rule or other just because they say the rule is only being "explained" in an "unofficial" way by a Circle member here on the boards?
bitznarf 03-14-07, 09:53 PM	*sighs* Sam, you just don't seem to 'get it'. I give up.
Samwise 03-14-07, 10:03 PM	No, regrettably I do get it. The WotC R&D people said something else about some of the rules questions we brought up, aside from the shock over centaurs wearing boots: "You can't just smack them?" Indeed, we can't. But there comes a point when discussing rules issues where people need to stop waiting for WotC to hold their hands and answer every single question, no matter how simple, complex, reasonable, or outrageous, and then put it in the FAQ. If you are going to sit on purely what you can find in a book or the FAQ, you are going to be unable to finish half the games that start, and you might as well not even bother playing. And so on that account, feel free to ignore the Ask Wizards entry. As I said, at my tables asserting that reach weapons aren't modified by soft cover will be treated as cheating by letter of the rules, and nobody can say I'm wrong, by the letter of the rules. Yes, I do very much get it. Unfortunately.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 10:10 PM	And so on that account, feel free to ignore the Ask Wizards entry. As I said, at my tables asserting that reach weapons aren't modified by soft cover will be treated as cheating by letter of the rules, and nobody can say I'm wrong, by the letter of the rules. Yes, I do very much get it. Unfortunately. At tables that you DM, you're more then welcome to uphold the rules in that fashion. What I am arguing against is you applying your ruling to all tables, which appears to be what you are trying to do. At least, thats what it looks like to me.
Samwise 03-14-07, 10:53 PM	At tables that you DM, you're more then welcome to uphold the rules in that fashion. What I am arguing against is you applying your ruling to all tables, which appears to be what you are trying to do. At least, thats what it looks like to me. How exactly could I do that? I'm just another player saying what I think. I won't deny I assert my position forcefully, but that hardly translates into me being able to wander into your local venue and force anyone to do anything.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 11:09 PM	Some sniping has been done. I do believe that this is all still in context though. It doesn't have to be a rules source for LG, the PHB is quite clear. It does however clearly establish the intent of the rule, and I'd consider anyone arguing it with me at a table to be cheating. And deliberately misrepresenting the rules is cheating, whether someone says it openly or not. Do you think that if no one says it it means it isn't cheating? Wow, that's three very "interesting perspectives." Quite the assumption there Sam, that someone is deliberately misrepresenting the rules. Kinda like saying that having a different opinion is cheating. It doesn't have to be a rules source for LG, the PHB is quite clear. It does however clearly establish the intent of the rule, and I'd consider anyone arguing it with me at a table to be cheating. See above... and below... And deliberately misrepresenting the rules is cheating, whether someone says it openly or not. Do you think that if no one says it it means it isn't cheating? The rule is not unclear. You can parse off the Ask Wizards entry as "not binding," but that does not change that it is in fact a definitive statement about what the rule means. Just because you are allowed to ignore that reference doesn't change that you are deliberately misrepresenting the rule. You can not parse that away. And here you have said that "deliberately misrepresenting the rules is cheating". Good thing cheating is allowed then :rolleyes: How exactly could I do that? I'm just another player saying what I think. I won't deny I assert my position forcefully, but that hardly translates into me being able to wander into your local venue and force anyone to do anything. The above sure sounds like you are trying to bully your way through Sam. The very first time in this thread that you made it specific to *your* table as opposed to *a/all* tables is post number 52: And so on that account, feel free to ignore the Ask Wizards entry. As I said, at my tables asserting that reach weapons aren't modified by soft cover will be treated as cheating by letter of the rules, and nobody can say I'm wrong, by the letter of the rules. You may call the above 'asserting your position forcefully'. I don't.
Samwise 03-14-07, 11:25 PM	Quite the assumption there Sam, that someone is deliberately misrepresenting the rules. Kinda like saying that having a different opinion is cheating. If you know the rule exists, even if it doesn't have to be used in LG, but you ignore it anyway, what would you call that other than deliberate? Particularly in the context it was presented of having to use the errata and all the rules. And here you have said that "deliberately misrepresenting the rules is cheating". Good thing cheating is allowed then :rolleyes: And what exactly have I misrepresented? The word from R&D is how the rule should be used. That is how I am presenting the rule. No misrepresentation involved. The above sure sounds like you are trying to bully your way through Sam. The very first time in this thread that you made it specific to *your* table as opposed to *a/all* tables is post number 52: I'm bullying my way through by saying I can't force anyone to do anything I want? When people object to me calling it I cheating, even though I obviously can't make them stop, I qualify it as obviously only applying at tables I run. You may call the above 'asserting your position forcefully'. I don't. And I call that trying to bully me.
bitznarf 03-14-07, 11:38 PM	Taking it into PM, no need to cluter up this thread any further.
JamesMaissen 03-15-07, 12:19 AM	And if you have determined that cover exists, a modifier is applied. That is how the rule for cover from ranged attacks reads, as a single sentence. So I expect that is what you are missing. I finally see what you are saying. I don't see how you handle 'soft cover doesn't apply to melee attacks' however. You determine that there is cover because a creature is in the way.. however page 151 says that kind of cover is soft cover, and the errata says that doesn't apply to melee attacks. I am guessing that some 'ask wizards' or other sources have clarified things towards this interpretation? I don't really read such, I assume it's similar to 'rules of the game' articles in nature? Perhaps there they are qualifying that they didn't mean what they said in the errata?? Anyway, without that outside material I really don't see how it is so clear that you would claim someone to be cheating to believe different from yourself. Would you believe that a judge, assuming that they believe as much in the opposite ruling, should declare you to be cheating at his table for your reading of the rules? While some people might indeed wish to have 'selective' readings of the rules for their own advantage, it doesn't follow that someone taking such a reading is automatically (or even likely) doing so. They may simply have an honest difference of opinion on what the rules say. Well I see your arguement, but currently I must admit that I find it lacking. Certainly lacking enough to wish to avoid claims of it being the only way of reading things. If you have more support I'd love to hear it, but without that I think it's contradictory at best. -James
Dragonmage74 03-15-07, 12:33 AM	Just to bring it back to Elusive Target... So the Negate Power Attack is pretty straightfoward. Cause Overreach is pretty much acceptable that it's a free trip attempt (not trip attack) with no negative modifiers. Diverting Defense...the general consensus is that the attack does reach the other flanker. The opposing views really has to do with what modifiers are involved when determining *if* it hits. Partial/soft cover grants an AC bonus. Flatfooted takes away some AC bonus. I suppose each table/DM decides what it'll go with. Is that about right?
JamesMaissen 03-15-07, 12:49 AM	Cause Overreach is pretty much acceptable that it's a free trip attempt (not trip attack) with no negative modifiers. Is that about right? Yes, with the caveat that some judges that are unfamiliar with Ellusive Target may confuse Trip attempt with Trip Attack. So be aware and ready to explain the difference, James
Samwise 03-15-07, 12:50 AM	I finally see what you are saying. I don't see how you handle 'soft cover doesn't apply to melee attacks' however. You determine that there is cover because a creature is in the way.. however page 151 says that kind of cover is soft cover, and the errata says that doesn't apply to melee attacks. I see what you are not looking at. There are two categories of weapon attacks: melee attacks ranged attacks There are two sub-categories of melee attacks: regular melee attacks melee attacks with reach For purposes of cover, melee attacks with reach are determined as ranged attacks. Soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Soft cover does apply to ranged attacks. Since melee attacks with reach are treated as ranged attacks for cover, they are affected by soft cover. The entire sub-category is shifted, for the effects of cover, from being a melee attack to being a ranged attack. I am guessing that some 'ask wizards' or other sources have clarified things towards this interpretation? I don't really read such, I assume it's similar to 'rules of the game' articles in nature? Perhaps there they are qualifying that they didn't mean what they said in the errata?? No, they meant what they said in the errata. Without the errata, the rule would be: Soft cover affects melee attacks. (Contradicting the picture example.) Soft cover does not affect ranged attacks. (Contradicting the general text about cover.) Soft cover does not affect melee reach attacks which are treated as ranged attacks. What that statement has done is clarfied what "determined" means, if it is needed. And that is that it means the tracing of lines and the effects of any cover encountered. Anyway, without that outside material I really don't see how it is so clear that you would claim someone to be cheating to believe different from yourself. And yet that outside material exists. And thus it falls under the need to consider the spirit as well as the letter of the rules. Would you believe that a judge, assuming that they believe as much in the opposite ruling, should declare you to be cheating at his table for your reading of the rules? Yes, if someone wishes to cheat by deliberately misinterpreting the rules, they can in fact say that someone is cheating for asserting the correct rule. If a DM believes in auto-surprise, he can say your are cheating because you want to make a Spot or Listen check. (Sorry bitznarf, that was from James, not me. I didn't catch it and delete it. That may follow, but not when there is information being ignored.)
bitznarf 03-15-07, 12:55 AM	Just to bring it back to Elusive Target... So the Negate Power Attack is pretty straightfoward. Cause Overreach is pretty much acceptable that it's a free trip attempt (not trip attack) with no negative modifiers. Diverting Defense...the general consensus is that the attack does reach the other flanker. The opposing views really has to do with what modifiers are involved when determining *if* it hits. Partial/soft cover grants an AC bonus. Flatfooted takes away some AC bonus. I suppose each table/DM decides what it'll go with. Is that about right? It would work a bit differently at a table I judge, but thats the gist of it as I see it, yes.
bitznarf 03-15-07, 12:58 AM	While some people might indeed wish to have 'selective' readings of the rules for their own advantage, it doesn't follow that someone taking such a reading is automatically (or even likely) doing so. They may simply have an honest difference of opinion on what the rules say. THANK YOU! This is (part) of what I have been trying to say to you for the last.. many hours.
JamesMaissen 03-15-07, 01:27 AM	I see what you are not looking at. There are two categories of weapon attacks: melee attacks ranged attacks There are two sub-categories of melee attacks: regular melee attacks melee attacks with reach For purposes of cover, melee attacks with reach are determined as ranged attacks. Soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Soft cover does apply to ranged attacks. So far we agree (though I think I would use melee attacks on nonadjacents as melee attacks with reach have confused some people). Since melee attacks with reach are treated as ranged attacks for cover, they are affected by soft cover. The entire sub-category is shifted, for the effects of cover, from being a melee attack to being a ranged attack. And this is where we diverge. I don't believe that they are 'treated' as ranged attacks, but merely what is said, that they are determined in that manor. Statements about melee attacks reference your first category with both its subcategories intact in my mind. No, they meant what they said in the errata. Without the errata, the rule would be: Soft cover affects melee attacks. (Contradicting the picture example.) Soft cover does not affect ranged attacks. (Contradicting the general text about cover.) Soft cover does not affect melee reach attacks which are treated as ranged attacks. Actually I disagree here as well. And am frankly surprised at your take on this as it seems to go against what you've said previously. Wouldn't you believe that even without the errata that creatures would provide cover for ranged attacks? And yet that outside material exists. And thus it falls under the need to consider the spirit as well as the letter of the rules. Could you provide a link to it? As I've said I've not read it. I read a few 'rules of the game' articles and found them to be.. shall we say lacking? And without researching these expository writings (which mind you I'm willing to do, but don't see it as a requirement to do) I do indeed think that the matter is at best ambiguous, and honestly tend to think that the letter goes against you. As for the 'spirit' of the rules, my mind is more open to discussion. But so far all I've seen here is a debate on the letter and I find your arguement to be less likely than the alternative. Yes, if someone wishes to cheat by deliberately misinterpreting the rules, they can in fact say that someone is cheating for asserting the correct rule. So under the given premise that I outlined (a judge believing the opposite that you do with equal measure and degree of certainty) should declare that you are cheating for declaring your beliefs. Likewise should they find themselves at your table they should declare that you are cheating there as well for your beliefs should you rule that way. So other than name calling on both sides of the table because two people disagree on a rule, what does this accomplish? -James
Gwumph 03-15-07, 01:35 AM	WOW Through all this discussion, 1 obvious point was missed!! Large and bigger monsters. Guys Read the rules. Read the paragraphs it's obvious.... Melee reach weapons use range rules for cover. Why word it like that... So an orge using a large long sword is not affected by soft cover. For me thats what it boils down to. It is word in a way to anything using a "reach" weapon has soft cover rules apply to it. Easy, straight forward, No errata, it's right in the latest printing of the PHB (which the latest printing is ALWAYS considered to be the rules to use) The rule was worded so Giant's using Huge Great Swords would not have soft cover rules apply to them. Now if that same Giant was welding a Huge Long Spear then soft cover would apply to him because..... he is using a reach weapon!!! No If's no But's, they didn't say melee attacks, they wrote melee reach weapons, very precise, and no legitimate room for argument. Also for those of you that are long time posters..... and have been arguing soft cover doesn't apply to reach weapons. 1. I expect that you know the rules better than you that. 2. Your arguments carry weight with the new guys on here and so you have a responsibility to the game to aviod these cheesewhezeel arguments that are clearly wrong and just murky the waters. This argument did nothing for the game. Soft cover has been discussed 3 or 4 times and each time, the rule that sft cover applies to reach weapons win. But some people just keep coming back, hoping that their spiked chain tripped is "some" not affected by this rule... IT IS... Let it go!
Samwise 03-15-07, 01:44 AM	So far we agree (though I think I would use melee attacks on nonadjacents as melee attacks with reach have confused some people). *twitch* Please don't bring those into it right now. And this is where we diverge. I don't believe that they are 'treated' as ranged attacks, but merely what is said, that they are determined in that manor. Statements about melee attacks reference your first category with both its subcategories intact in my mind. Except that is the stated intent of the designers. Actually I disagree here as well. And am frankly surprised at your take on this as it seems to go against what you've said previously. Wouldn't you believe that even without the errata that creatures would provide cover for ranged attacks? That is the rules as written and before the errata. It isn't so much what I believe as what they said. And indeed, I noted the contradictions inherent in it. What would I believe without the errata? Why the spirit of the rules. There are two locations (the basic text for cover and the diagram) where soft cover applies to melee but not ranged) and one location where soft cover applies only to melee. Preponderance of evidence would lead me to expect the error was in soft cover, and it should read ranged. This was in fact the errata. Could you provide a link to it? As I've said I've not read it. I read a few 'rules of the game' articles and found them to be.. shall we say lacking? I did before. Again: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060822a So under the given premise that I outlined (a judge believing the opposite that you do with equal measure and degree of certainty) should declare that you are cheating for declaring your beliefs. Likewise should they find themselves at your table they should declare that you are cheating there as well for your beliefs should you rule that way. So other than name calling on both sides of the table because two people disagree on a rule, what does this accomplish? -James That depends. If you think it is irrelevant name calling to assert the rules, then I suppose it accomplishes nothing. If you actually care to have the rules used, then I expect it means quite a bit more.
pedr 03-15-07, 07:21 AM	Two things: 1) I don't believe that the LGCS requires judges to take any note whatsoever of a source which isn't the LGCS, the latest printings of the Core rulebooks as errataed (and some alternative rules in other books) and the FAQ. They are allowed to, and players can use other sources to support an argument, but a DM is allowed to make decisions on the rules where those sources aren't clear. He can say: "that Rules of the Game article is wrong, per the allowed sources. It contradicts the allowed rules sources here, so I'm ignoring it." That's not cheating, that is exercising his judge's duties. 2) The line 'soft cover applies to ranged attacks not melee attacks' is not a rule. It is very clear when you stop to think about it that the errata document works by explaining a problem, then fixing it. The 'fix' is a rule, the explanation is not. Any argument based on that sentence is flawed: the errata does not say that soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. It does nothing more than swap the word 'ranged' for the word 'melee' in the text of the PHB. Such a conclusion would probably be clear if the latest printing of the PHB could be examinied. I can't do that as I don't have a copy but remember: anything but the latest printing of the PHB is not a valid rules source for LG. So you don't need to look at RotG articles and whatnot... the rule is clear from mandatory, binding sources.
Samwise 03-15-07, 12:33 PM	Two things: 1) I don't believe that the LGCS requires judges to take any note whatsoever of a source which isn't the LGCS, the latest printings of the Core rulebooks as errataed (and some alternative rules in other books) and the FAQ. Page 5, Guidelines for Ethical Play, 3rd bullet point: "Follow both the spirit and letter of the rules." If you think ignoring something that is a clarification not an errata is fine because it isn't required then you need to consider what it means to follow the spirit of the rules. 2) The line 'soft cover applies to ranged attacks not melee attacks' is not a rule. It is very clear when you stop to think about it that the errata document works by explaining a problem, then fixing it. The 'fix' is a rule, the explanation is not. Any argument based on that sentence is flawed: the errata does not say that soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. It does nothing more than swap the word 'ranged' for the word 'melee' in the text of the PHB. Such a conclusion would probably be clear if the latest printing of the PHB could be examinied. I can't do that as I don't have a copy but remember: anything but the latest printing of the PHB is not a valid rules source for LG. So you don't need to look at RotG articles and whatnot... the rule is clear from mandatory, binding sources. That is absolutely incorrect. The errata and the Ask Wizards entry address two separate, albeit connected, rules in the Player's Handbook. Any argument based on them addressing the same rule is invalid. As long as you ignore that this issue is based on three separate passages in the Player's Handbook you will inevitably wind up with an incorrect answer. The rule that was errataed, changing melee to ranged, does not negate the other case of treating melee reach as ranged.
pedr 03-15-07, 01:04 PM	I'm not arguing with you on the specifics. I am pretty sure I agree, though I've not read every word to be certain of how you'd rule on corner cases. I'm convinced that reach attacks use the ranged cover rules. This is designated as soft cover so doesn't provide the +2 to reflex saves or enable you to hide but is cover for all other purposes. This applies to all attacks not against adjacent opponents. My main criticism is equating 'Rules of the Game' and 'Ask Wizards' with 'spirit of the rules' arguments. Spirit of the rules means 'how things are intended to work', I believe. At least that's my working definition for now. Sometimes, non-mandatory sources provide evidence of that intent. Sometimes, non-mandatory sources contradict the clear statements of the rules as written. You have to abide by both rules-as-written and the spirit inspiring those rules and this is absolutely a judgement call. Arguing that coming to a different conclusion on it is tantamount to cheating is overstating your case - which is otherwise very strong and doesn't require that distraction.
Samwise 03-15-07, 01:13 PM	My main criticism is equating 'Rules of the Game' and 'Ask Wizards' with 'spirit of the rules' arguments. Spirit of the rules means 'how things are intended to work', I believe. At least that's my working definition for now. Sometimes, non-mandatory sources provide evidence of that intent. Sometimes, non-mandatory sources contradict the clear statements of the rules as written. You have to abide by both rules-as-written and the spirit inspiring those rules and this is absolutely a judgement call. Arguing that coming to a different conclusion on it is tantamount to cheating is overstating your case - which is otherwise very strong and doesn't require that distraction. It functions on two levels: 1. The Ask Wizards entry clarifies, states the "spirit of the rules," for the word "determine" in regards to melee reach attacks. If one is to argue what the intent of that rule is, and its interaction with the other, separately errated rule regarding soft cover, then it would appear there is an overwhelming boost to one side of that argument. 2. When saying that other sources do not have to be used, the existence of something, however much it does not have to be used, when determining intent is significant, and it becomes much against the "spirit of the rules" to dismiss it out of hand because of the "letter of the rules." In this case, presuming that the rule is unclear, the clear statement outside of a mandatory sentence does not contradict the clear text. It may be said to contradict the unclear text, but then it equally supports the clear text. Once that need to interpret is admitted, no matter how many other non-mandatory sources contradict clear text, that circumstance can not be reasonably said to exist in this case, and so that becomes an invalid basis for excluding the use of a non-mandatory source.
King Kashue 03-18-07, 10:25 PM	WOW Through all this discussion, 1 obvious point was missed!! Large and bigger monsters. Guys Read the rules. Read the paragraphs it's obvious.... Melee reach weapons use range rules for cover. Why word it like that... So an orge using a large long sword is not affected by soft cover. For me thats what it boils down to. It is word in a way to anything using a "reach" weapon has soft cover rules apply to it. Easy, straight forward, No errata, it's right in the latest printing of the PHB (which the latest printing is ALWAYS considered to be the rules to use) The rule was worded so Giant's using Huge Great Swords would not have soft cover rules apply to them. Now if that same Giant was welding a Huge Long Spear then soft cover would apply to him because..... he is using a reach weapon!!! No If's no But's, they didn't say melee attacks, they wrote melee reach weapons, very precise, and no legitimate room for argument. That isn't at all what the rules say, they most definitely said "melee attack" (you ought to read them more closely if you're going to be so assertive in correcting everyone else)... "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." (PHB p. 151) The mention of a reach weapon is an example, not a specific limitation...The condition that require the use of the ranged rules is a "melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you"... That category would most certainly include large creatures with natural reach, so your argument that it was worded to exclude them seems quite invalid...