Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ramacass 03-17-07, 09:48 PM	Hi, I hold an unpopular opinion in my gaming group. According to my understanding of the rules, soft cover provides cover from melee attacks by creatures attacking a target that is not adjacent to them. ie if an ogre is reaching over your friend's head to bash you, you get cover against the ogres attack, also in addition to the plus 4 to AC you are not subject to attacks of opportunity from the ogre. On page 151 of the PHB under the "soft cover" heading it says "Creatures even your enemies can provide you with cover against ranged attacks" that seems to disprove my understanding of the rules but if you look at the top of that same page it also says "when making an 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" Which seems to me very very clear. Yet even more confusion arises, when I brought this up that same friend said it means soft cover works agains reach weapons but not creatures with natural reach??? This based on the "(such as with a reach weapon)" statement. He said there was an errata that said soft cover doesn't work against reach and that there was discussion on these boards that proved he was right but I looked and couldn't find either. Can anyone shed some light? Thanks
clik_ml 03-17-07, 10:10 PM	Your friend is right, the answer is in the errata for the PHB, which removed the bit about reach weapons having to respect soft cover like ranged weaopns do. Soft Cover Player's Handbook, page 151 Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks. In the first sentence of the paragraph, change “melee” to “ranged.” I strongly recommend downloading and reading the errata for three core books, or at the very least downloading them so you can reference them. They made my life a lot easier after downloading em. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a There's the link to all the errata and such.
Timlagor 03-17-07, 10:23 PM	The errata does not actually answer this question at all. If you actually insert the errata properly you get a nicely ambiguous situation (as it is in the most recent publications fo the PHB). Pre-errata it said something silly like 'soft cover applies to melee attacks'. I consider the "Ask Wizards" article (quoted in full below) to be the definitive answer on this topic. It's clear from the answer that they have considered and consulted on this question and that the answer given is the considred opinion of the D&D designers. It is not binding on LG judges but it is a valid source for guidance and I considered it solid enough to change the way I ruled on this question. If WotC ever does answer this question in an LG-binding fashion I think we can be confident that they will rule this way. In the interests of limitting unnecessary and unhelpful table variation I urge all LG judges to use this ruling. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060822a "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? --Judson 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)."
Zanzibax 03-17-07, 10:26 PM	melee reach attacks use the rules for ranged attacks to determine cover -- that's still assinine.
Ramacass 03-18-07, 01:01 AM	Your friend is right, the answer is in the errata for the PHB, which removed the bit about reach weapons having to respect soft cover like ranged weaopns do. I strongly recommend downloading and reading the errata for three core books, or at the very least downloading them so you can reference them. They made my life a lot easier after downloading em. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a There's the link to all the errata and such. My copy of the player handbook already has already been changed to include that errata. My point focuses on the line that says "When making melee attacks against a target that isn't adjacent to you use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" which was not errataed out and so reach attacks are considered ranged attacks when determining cover and therefore soft cover applies. That is what seems clear to me. If one were to read it as soft cover not applying how would you interperate the part about using the rules for ranged attacks to determin cover against reach attacks?
Ramacass 03-18-07, 01:04 AM	Thanks Timlagor, That answers my question
paigeoliver 03-18-07, 01:06 AM	The ogre is large sized, shouldn't he have a clear path in the vertical dimension?
clik_ml 03-18-07, 01:28 AM	I considered it solid enough to change the way I ruled on this question. ... 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)." Me too, now. Thanks.
DroidTrooper 03-18-07, 01:49 AM	I feel silly asking this. But I got the basics oh how D&D combat works from the D&D miniatures game. I know there are differences but it does pretty well. At any rate, in Miniatures 'Melee cover' (cover provided by Walls/Buildings) prevents AoOs. However soft cover (which does apply to melee reach attacks in the game) does not prevent such AoOs should the creature have reach. So I looked in the DMG and Players Handbook to see try and find the wording of the covers rules regarding AoOs. To that end I could not even find the sentence that (any type of) cover prevents AoOs. I did read it in the 'rules of the game' article but I'd like the book reference if possible. So could someone point me to the page where it says that cover prevents AoOs in the core books? And if soft cover prevents AoOs? Thanks
thorinXXX 03-18-07, 12:20 PM	The ogre is large sized, shouldn't he have a clear path in the vertical dimension? No, not unless the second opponent is above the first.
thorinXXX 03-18-07, 12:25 PM	Before some gets the bright idea that the soft cover rules do not apply to the ogre because he is not using a reach weapon (like some infinite monkey did), the rule is for NON ADJACENT ATTACKS, such as with reach weapons.
ShinAkuma2 03-18-07, 01:11 PM	melee reach attacks use the rules for ranged attacks to determine cover -- that's still assinine. How do you figure? If you've got a polearm, isn't harder to jab someone through someone else then it is to jab him with a clear shot?
RanielK 03-18-07, 01:18 PM	A few things on cover, reach and AoO's: PHB 150: 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). (emphasis mine) PHB 151: 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: Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you. PHB 151: Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. PHB 151: 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. In short. A big creature chooses the most advantageous square he fills (of the many he fills) and must trace ALL lines from the most advantageous corner of that square to all corners of the square of the target he is swipping at with his reach (after all is he going to choose a non advantageous square/corner). If any one line passes through anything that can be considered cover, to include a creature, then the target has cover (since he uses ranged rules to determine cover for reach attacks). If the target has cover, the creature may not take an AoO.
bitznarf 03-18-07, 01:39 PM	He uses ranged rules to determine cover for non-adjacent attacks, not reach weapons in particular.
ShinAkuma2 03-18-07, 03:02 PM	He uses ranged rules to determine cover for non-adjacent attacks, not reach weapons in particular. I can't tell...Are you trying to argue that reach weapon attacks aren't non-adjacent attacks? Or are you simply restating that it applies to all non-adjacent attacks, rather than only reach weapon attacks?
thorinXXX 03-18-07, 03:06 PM	I can't tell...Are you trying to argue that reach weapon attacks aren't non-adjacent attacks? Or are you simply restating that it applies to all non-adjacent attacks, rather than only reach weapon attacks? The second.
bitznarf 03-18-07, 07:03 PM	Right
RanielK 03-19-07, 01:30 PM	He uses ranged rules to determine cover for non-adjacent attacks, not reach weapons in particular. Yes, I should have been clearer. However, I left the word weapon out on purpose. A creature with reach attack from his square(s) out to his reach. A creature with a reach weapon usually attacks at reach and not in his square or the adjacent squares. The feat Short Haft and Spiked Chain are two examples where one can attack in the adjacent squares with a reach weapon. A creature with reach AND a reach weapon attacks from the edge of his reach out to the weapon's reach (say from 10 feet to 20 feet with a 10 foot reach and a reach weapon) but not adjacent to the creature. All are examples of attacks made at reach, though not necessarily examples of reach weapons.
Dempster 03-20-07, 05:08 PM	"When making melee attacks against a target that isn't adjacent to you use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" which was not errataed out and so reach attacks are considered ranged attacks when determining cover and therefore soft cover applies. That is what seems clear to me. If one were to read it as soft cover not applying how would you interperate the part about using the rules for ranged attacks to determin cover against reach attacks?[/QUOTE] I would interpret this as saying " when dealing with hard cover, such as a pillar or statue, use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" as the rules are written soft cover is not a consideration when making a mellee attack.
King Kashue 03-20-07, 05:15 PM	I'm waiting for one of the splat books to have a "Precise Reach Poking" feat...
thorinXXX 03-20-07, 07:00 PM	I'm waiting for one of the splat books to have a "Precise Reach Poking" feat... It would probably be called "Formation Fighting", and I am seriously suprised that there hasn't been a feat or PRC with that ability. After all, it exists (or existed) in real life. Otherwise pike blocks would not have ruled the battlefield for as long as they did.
clannagh 03-20-07, 09:59 PM	I'm waiting for one of the splat books to have a "Precise Reach Poking" feat... Complete Warrior .. EWM Exotic Reach .. kinda gets half way there
ShinAkuma2 03-21-07, 02:02 AM	I would interpret this as saying " when dealing with hard cover, such as a pillar or statue, use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" as the rules are written soft cover is not a consideration when making a mellee attack. ...Unless it's a non-adjacent melee attack. Simple demonstration: Take a pool cue, and try to hit a ball. Easy enough, right? Now reset the ball, and put another ball in front of it. Now try to hit the first ball. Without adjusting your position, you have to go around the second ball, making it more difficult. Congratulations, you've just experienced what cover represents; objects get in the way of other objects. Soft cover just means it's a person rather than an object in D&D terms. If you replace those billiard balls with people, and the pool cue with a lance, the principles are identical.
Zanzibax 03-21-07, 08:46 AM	...Unless it's a non-adjacent melee attack. Simple demonstration: Take a pool cue, and try to hit a ball. Easy enough, right? Now reset the ball, and put another ball in front of it. Now try to hit the first ball. Without adjusting your position, you have to go around the second ball, making it more difficult. Congratulations, you've just experienced what cover represents; objects get in the way of other objects. Soft cover just means it's a person rather than an object in D&D terms. If you replace those billiard balls with people, and the pool cue with a lance, the principles are identical. Eh, I'll look at the bright side. It's a ruling that will usually work against monsters more often than PCs.
King Kashue 03-21-07, 11:32 AM	Complete Warrior .. EWM Exotic Reach .. kinda gets half way there Uh, not in the slightest :D That ability does nothing to reduce the cover penalty the way precise shot does for ranged attacks...
Dempster 03-21-07, 04:35 PM	...Unless it's a non-adjacent melee attack. Simple demonstration: Take a pool cue, and try to hit a ball. Easy enough, right? Now reset the ball, and put another ball in front of it. Now try to hit the first ball. Without adjusting your position, you have to go around the second ball, making it more difficult. Congratulations, you've just experienced what cover represents; objects get in the way of other objects. Soft cover just means it's a person rather than an object in D&D terms. If you replace those billiard balls with people, and the pool cue with a lance, the principles are identical. Personally I think it would be alot esaier if there were no distinction between soft and hard cover. Cover should just be cover. If something is in the way of your line of attack the defender gets +4 AC no matter what is in the way. Simple...but unfortunatally not how it works.
King Kashue 03-21-07, 04:57 PM	Simple...but unfortunatally not how it works. Actually it is, at least for attacks... The only difference is that soft cover doesn't give a bonus to reflex saves or allow a hide check... There is no way for another creature to be in the way on an adjacent melee attack, therefore the "soft cover" definition only comes into play on non-adjacent melee attacks. As the ruling stands now, all cover applies to ranged attacks (and non-adjacent melee attacks), and soft cover can't even happen on adjacent melee (since no one can interpose themselves if the bases touch).
ShinAkuma2 03-21-07, 05:28 PM	Personally I think it would be alot esaier if there were no distinction between soft and hard cover. Cover should just be cover. Cool, then don't mind me while my Rogue snipes from right behind the Fighter.
clannagh 03-21-07, 06:12 PM	Eh, I'll look at the bright side. It's a ruling that will usually work against monsters more often than PCs. Allowing soft cover or disallowing it ? Currently we allow soft cover and the big difference I have noticed is the ease with which the party can get into or out of combat without A0O's with reach creatures. It doesnt really disadvantage players with reach that much.
jhorred 03-21-07, 08:17 PM	Allowing soft cover or disallowing it ? Currently we allow soft cover and the big difference I have noticed is the ease with which the party can get into or out of combat without A0O's with reach creatures. It doesnt really disadvantage players with reach that much. There are few times when it'd apply to the PCs. Which is why I find it a little odd that so many people are vehemently opposed to the ruling that was made by the R&D guy. It favors the good guys.....
Timlagor 03-22-07, 08:59 AM	I'm pretty sure I've seen the ability you're talking about Kashue. It was in a non-LG book though (and I can't remember which -possibly Eberoron related-so I'm not about to go looking) ..I saw it before the Ask Wizards thing I linked to and chose to ignore it at the time. (they have introduced enough other features that let you do something you can already do that I felt safe doing so)
DerekSTheRed 03-26-07, 10:39 PM	I'm pretty sure I've seen the ability you're talking about Kashue. It was in a non-LG book though (and I can't remember which -possibly Eberoron related-so I'm not about to go looking) ..I saw it before the Ask Wizards thing I linked to and chose to ignore it at the time. (they have introduced enough other features that let you do something you can already do that I felt safe doing so) I believe you are referring to the Eberron feat Precise Swing: Pre-Req: BAB+5 Benefit: You ignore all effects of cover (but not total cover) when making a melee attack, including a melee attack with a reach weapon.
Arvagor 03-26-07, 11:38 PM	I believe you are referring to the Eberron feat Precise Swing: [...]Thanks for the good quote... For whatever reason on this issue, people like to ignore the examples scattered throughout the rulebooks that continue to illustrate that cover does, in fact, apply to reach weapons. There's another good one in Complete Warrior (page 124) that always comes to mind:Set for Charge: [...] A formation can have spears, tridents, halberds, or dwarven urgroshes in the first rank and longspears (which have reach) in the second row to get double coverage on the squares just in front of the formation. In such a case, the charging creatures gain a +4 bonus to Armor Class against the longspears in the second row because the soldiers in the front row give the charging creatures cover. [emphasis mine]
King Kashue 03-27-07, 01:58 AM	Thanks for the good quote... For whatever reason on this issue, people like to ignore the examples scattered throughout the rulebooks that continue to illustrate that cover does, in fact, apply to reach weapons. Since hard cover applies to any melee attack, the rule doesn't really clarify anything, since it's useful whether soft cover applies or not. The clarification is in the Ask Wizards entry.
Lord_Zeb 03-30-07, 02:54 PM	I think that instead of focusing on the words, we should see the structure it describes: Soft Cover is granted by other creatures functioning as Cover. Soft Cover effects is to grant Cover effects against ranged attacks (which include Reach attacks, i.e. melee attacks not done in adjacent squares), with the exclusion of reflex save bonus or Hide ability. Cover grant protection against Attacks of opportunity. By this last general clause, I would rule that this would include both Soft cover and Improved cover. Hence, soft cover should protect against all Attacks of Opportunity, even if it otherwise do not protect against melee attacks. This would make for a more easily interpreted ruling, than trying to decipher multiple little modifiers and special rules. This also makes sense, in the way that people then actively can block and protect their allies, for instance defending a prone character (from attacks of opportunity) by standing above her, while she drinks Potions. Being in the same square is basically the only time they can reach them without Reach attacks and still have the defenders having Soft cover, as attacks of opportunity are Melee attacks. If one would not rule for the general clause, then Soft cover would still protect against attack of opportunity against Reach attacks. (But that strict of an interpretation of the words would then grant attacks of opportunity against people in Improved cover, since that is not strictly only "cover".) This having Soft cover blocking Attacks of Opportunity is of an important strategic value, as it grants a path of movement into melee combat with a Reach using combatant so he cannot do attacks of opportunity toward you. (It does however restrict your movement pattern, especially against creatures occupying more than one square.) And this is not bad, since this emphasize how dangerous it is fighting multiple foes as they can coordinate with each other.
Timlagor 01-18-08, 01:11 PM	I fear you have missed the point Soft Cover effects is to grant Cover effects against ranged attacks (which include Reach attacks, i.e. melee attacks not done in adjacent squares), with the exclusion of reflex save bonus or Hide ability.[/LIST] The bit I've 'bolded' is what is in question. ..and incidentally rules* in Complete Warrior aren't rules in LG unless the GM says they are *as opposed to "rules items"
Timlagor 01-18-08, 01:13 PM	Uh, not in the slightest :D That ability does nothing to reduce the cover penalty the way precise shot does for ranged attacks... Precise shot does nothing to reduce the cover penalty. ..and that isn't just because cover grants a bonus to AC not a penalty to hit.
bitznarf 01-18-08, 01:14 PM	Um... threadomancy?
Timlagor 01-18-08, 01:18 PM	It came up again on Infinite Monkeys.
magebeast 01-18-08, 01:20 PM	It came up again on Infinite Monkeys. Yeah but the post you replied to was 8 months old.
RanielK 01-23-08, 09:02 AM	It came up again on Infinite Monkeys. I'd have to agree with bitsnarf and magebeast. It is definite thredomancy. Just because some guy on Infinite Monkeys hasn't got a clue yet doesn't change the facts that: a) there has been no new errata for the PHB since the leatherbound version came out. b) that PHB states: 1) soft cover applies to ranged attacks 2) non-adjacent melee attacks count as ranged attacks 3) AOO's are stopped by cover 4) how to figue if one creature has cover versus another (the whole corner to corner thing) Thus soft cover applies against non-adjacent melee attacks and stops AOO's from reach attackers. c) a perusal of the latest FAQ (made two weeks ago) does not change any of the above. For the FAQ search it for the words/phrases "Attack of Opportunity", "Attacks of Opportunity", "AOO", "cover", "soft cover" and "reach" either seperately (easisest for a PDF) or in groups. Now it is possible (but not likely) the next FAQ will change all that.
JamesMaissen 01-23-08, 03:55 PM	Just because some guy on Infinite Monkeys hasn't got a clue yet doesn't change the facts that: a) there has been no new errata for the PHB since the leatherbound version came out. b) that PHB states: 2) non-adjacent melee attacks count as ranged attacks As the guy on Inf Monkeys that hasn't gotten a clue yet... I am failing to see where non-adjacent melee attacks *count* as ranged attacks for purposes of cover. What I *do* see is that there are 2 ways to *determine* cover depending on how you are attacking. Way 1: Adjacent melee attacks. Draw every line between the two squares. Way 2: Ranged attacks. Attacker picks one of his corners draws to all 4 of the target. I read 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" to me *just* that. Please note in the above quote that *determining* is used. So why should one be doing more than *determining* the cover using Way 2 above? -James
TetsujinOni 01-23-08, 04:03 PM	c) a perusal of the latest FAQ (made two weeks ago) does not change any of the above. I checked - the last 3.5 FAQ I saw on the D&D FAQ page was dated 10/2007. Where's this new one for 1/2008?
pedr 01-23-08, 04:20 PM	I am failing to see where non-adjacent melee attacks *count* as ranged attacks for purposes of cover.Although it's not technically an LG rules source, Andy Collins provided the following for 'Ask Wizards': 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).(http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060822a) This accords fully with the slightly ambiguous statements in the PH, but even without it I was convinced from the wording in the PH (as amended by the errata) that soft cover applied to melee reach attacks. It is slightly more ambiguous whether or not soft cover negates AoOs as the soft cover section explicitly allows the +4 AC bonus and explicitly disallows hiding and the reflex save bonus, but does not mention AoOs. However as soft cover is cover, it ought to have all the properties of cover not excluded by the description of its benefits, including the negation of AoOs.
Timlagor 01-23-08, 07:56 PM	Way 1: Adjacent melee attacks. Draw every line between the two squares. Way 2: Ranged attacks. Attacker picks one of his corners draws to all 4 of the target. Way 2: Ranged attacks. Attacker picks one of his corners draws to all 4 of the target, and creatures can provide cover. There's no reason to categorise Soft Cover as outside "how to determine if there's cover".
JamesMaissen 01-23-08, 09:03 PM	Way 2: Ranged attacks. Attacker picks one of his corners draws to all 4 of the target, and creatures can provide cover. There's no reason to categorise Soft Cover as outside "how to determine if there's cover". I guess that is what they intended the section to mean. And perhaps it is my original reading of the section that is prejudicing me here. However three things still are unsettling in this regard. 1. The errata where it says 'soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks'. 2. Why the word 'determining' was even used. Remove the word from the sentence and it means what you (and evidently WOTC) claim it means. 3. Why, for a creature with natural reach, something 5ft away is so vastly different than 10ft+ away in regards to what gives cover. Again, perhaps it is simply how I first read it and thus I've incorporated it into my thinking. -James
magebeast 01-23-08, 09:45 PM	3. Why, for a creature with natural reach, something 5ft away is so vastly different than 10ft+ away in regards to what gives cover. Because if they within 5 ft of each other the only possible cover you could have would be through a doorway?
Timlagor 01-24-08, 08:13 AM	Remember that you are modelling a dynamic combat with this system: I assume the -4 for firing into melee is because adjacent foes are considered to be moving into each other's squares in the course of the round. 10' means there is a clear gap at all times. "not melee attacks" refers to the original wording which (erroneously) said that soft cover applied to melee attacks (and made no mention of ranged attacks).
RanielK 01-24-08, 08:21 AM	I checked - the last 3.5 FAQ I saw on the D&D FAQ page was dated 10/2007. Where's this new one for 1/2008? There isn't one. My point was I last read the most recent FAQ at that time and there was NOTHING negating any of the points I had made. There were no entries along the lines of "Hey ya know that whole reach attacking and cover thing? You're wrong, they do get AOO's." I was merely hedging my statement in case a FAQ had come out last week saying something on reach, cover and AOO's.
RanielK 01-24-08, 08:26 AM	As the guy on Inf Monkeys that hasn't gotten a clue yet... I am failing to see where non-adjacent melee attacks *count* as ranged attacks for purposes of cover. What I *do* see is that there are 2 ways to *determine* cover depending on how you are attacking. Way 1: Adjacent melee attacks. Draw every line between the two squares. Way 2: Ranged attacks. Attacker picks one of his corners draws to all 4 of the target. I read 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" to me *just* that. Please note in the above quote that *determining* is used. So why should one be doing more than *determining* the cover using Way 2 above? -James Sure.fine. "Determining" cover. I was quoting with the leatherbound PHB in hand after having searched the most recent FAQ when I wrote the following last year: PHB 150: 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). (emphasis mine) PHB 151: 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: Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you. PHB 151: Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. PHB 151: 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. As stated previously, I checked the FAQ yet again to see if it had been updated with this subject in mind. It had not. As there was no new FAQ ruling and no new errata for the PHB, what I quoted stands.
TetsujinOni 01-24-08, 09:12 AM	There isn't one. My point was I last read the most recent FAQ at that time and there was NOTHING negating any of the points I had made. There were no entries along the lines of "Hey ya know that whole reach attacking and cover thing? You're wrong, they do get AOO's." I was merely hedging my statement in case a FAQ had come out last week saying something on reach, cover and AOO's. And just to make us both wrong, they posted it today. And it doesn't say a (new) word about reach and cover.
RanielK 01-24-08, 02:04 PM	And just to make us both wrong, they posted it today. And it doesn't say a (new) word about reach and cover. :D Yep, aint that just the luck! I'm sure those evil web gnomes over at WotC were holding back just so's I could stick my foot in my mouth. But then again, considering I've got a permanent tread mark in my throat, maybe not. :embarrass