Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jay_Ibero_911 05-10-06, 11:51 PM	I've had a lot of disagreement regarding the subject. Most people look at pg151 of the phb, where it says soft cover applies to melee attacks. But the errata corrects that to say ranged attacks. But in another part it says reach weapons are treated as ranged weapons when determining cover. My problem is, if they didn't mean the errata to apply to reach weapons, there was no point in making it, since there is no way to gain soft cover against an adjacent enemy, only one at least 10 ft away...
kjenks 05-11-06, 07:01 AM	Yes, the errata can be read either way. Annoying, isn't it?
Jay_Ibero_911 05-12-06, 09:46 PM	Anyone have anything useful to contribute?
kjenks 05-12-06, 10:37 PM	Well, there's nothing official. But I can tell you my interpretation of the imperfectly worded errata, if that will help. PHB Errata === 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.” === The SRD already has that errata incorporated: SRD === 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. === The trouble is that the first sentence of the errata ("Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks.") could be interpreted to include melee attacks with reach weapons (which normally use the cover rules for ranged attacks). I think the first sentence was supposed to apply only to melee attacks into adjacent squares, and that soft cover does indeed apply to melee attacks with reach weapons. I think that we should just change the word "melee" to "ranged."
Samwise 05-13-06, 11:56 AM	No, the errata is worded correctly. The initial sentence is merely an explanation of what the problem being corrected is. It is not part of the actual errata. That is limited to changing a single word, as contained in the SRD version. This in no way changes the general rules for determing if cover exists (which are different for ranged and melee attacks), or the special rule for reach weapons (which says they determine cover as if they were ranged attacks). it is a simple matter of hierarchy of rules, and applying only the specific changes called for in the errata. While including the reasons for a change in the errata text may seem unusual, it an accepted standard. (Years of experience with wargaming and wargaming errata come in handy in cases like this. Of course, it also makes me prefer rules written like wargame rules. They are much easier to keep track of.)
Jay_Ibero_911 05-13-06, 09:21 PM	My problem is, if they didn't intend for it to apply to reach weapons as well, the errata is pointless, because their is no situation I can think of that would grant soft cover to an adjacent enemy anyway...although I suppose the errata was necessary to make soft cover apply to ranged attacks...
Samwise 05-13-06, 10:41 PM	What about sharing your space with a larger creature? Aren't there some iterations of that which qualify?
smerwin29 05-13-06, 11:03 PM	Was there ever an FAQ answering this question? Sam, being an LG Core mod editor, what do you say on the rule? Does soft cover apply when it comes between a target and a reach-weapon wielder? Shawn
Samwise 05-13-06, 11:39 PM	There is nothing in the 3.5 FAQ about reach and soft cover. (I could check the 3.0 FAQ if anyone thinks it would be relevant. As for me, as I said, I think structure I outlined makes it clear that soft cover applies to reach weapons. But that is just me, as an individual DM. I don't make rules decisions as a core editor. If for some reason it came up in a Core adventure I was editing, I'd treat it as appropriate based on that view (either noting to myself that the author got it right or inserting a comment that I believe he was applying the rule incorrectly and send it to Creighton). He makes any such decisions, I just point out anything I think is incorrect for him. However, it would take a really specific situation for this to ever come up, so I doubt I'd ever have to ask him about it. If it ever did, and if I was told that no, soft cover doesn't apply to reach weapons, or if a more general rules notice was given about it, then I'd stop applying it. So don't take my decisions as something binding from the Circle. That's not something I get to do, or would even try to do. I just edit adventures, and hopefully make them better.
Arvagor 05-14-06, 12:41 AM	My problem is, if they didn't intend for it to apply to reach weapons as well, the errata is pointless, because their is no situation I can think of that would grant soft cover to an adjacent enemy anyway...although I suppose the errata was necessary to make soft cover apply to ranged attacks...I can think of at least one, but perhaps its not in the same context as you're thinking of -- making a DC 15 Ride check to gain cover from your mount... This might also be the situation of sharing your space with a larger creature (what Samwise was thinking of?)
Samwise 05-14-06, 12:45 AM	I noticed that while checking for soft cover and reach in the FAQ. I was actually thinking about the rule for sharing/moving through a space with a creature two (three?) sizes larger than you. There may be others, I'm not sure.
Arvagor 05-14-06, 12:56 AM	I noticed that while checking for soft cover and reach in the FAQ. I was actually thinking about the rule for sharing/moving through a space with a creature two (three?) sizes larger than you. There may be others, I'm not sure. Normally it would be three; feats such as 'Underfoot Combat' will allow you to move into or through the space of a creature 2 sizes larger. Underfoot Combat also states that the smaller creature gains soft cover against all attacks (including the creature whose space is being occupied). I'm not sure, however, if the bit about cover is just meant to be a reminder of the PHB soft cover rule, or if this is meant to be a benefit specific only to Underfoot Combat.
smerwin29 05-14-06, 11:18 AM	But that is just me, as an individual DM. I don't make rules decisions as a core editor. Understood. But I do value your opinion. So here's a follow-up question. Does a spellcaster standing behind an ally provoke an AoO from an enemy threatening with a reach melee weapon when casting a spell? In other words, does soft cover negate the AoO? Thanks, Shawn
Samwise 05-14-06, 11:42 AM	Understood. But I do value your opinion. So here's a follow-up question. Does a spellcaster standing behind an ally provoke an AoO from an enemy threatening with a reach melee weapon when casting a spell? In other words, does soft cover negate the AoO? Thanks, Shawn Again, using a simple rules hierarchy, then soft cover negates the AoO potential. The rule reads: Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you. Since using a melee weapon against a non-adjacent target uses the rules for ranged attacks to determine cover, with no other exemptions or special cases noted, you can claim soft cover protection, and thus the immunity from AoOs. Again, that's how I read it. If someone gets something different from CustServ or the Sage, then so be it.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-06, 11:42 AM	Understood. But I do value your opinion. So here's a follow-up question. Does a spellcaster standing behind an ally provoke an AoO from an enemy threatening with a reach melee weapon when casting a spell? In other words, does soft cover negate the AoO? Reach weapons are treated as ranged weapons as regards cover. So someone standing between you and the spellcaster is considered to give that spellcaster cover, just as they would if you were shooting that spellcaster during your action with a bow. And therefore, yes, it would negate the AoO. "You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you."(pg 151 PHB) (not Sam, but I'm one of the people he'll argue rules points with ftf and he doesn't expect to automatically win it)
SgtHulka 05-14-06, 10:42 PM	By the rules as written, would a spellcaster's familiar be able to provide cover for the spellcaster when sharing his square? Or is there something I missed about tiny or smaller creatures not providing soft cover?
Arvagor 05-15-06, 11:57 AM	By the rules as written, would a spellcaster's familiar be able to provide cover for the spellcaster when sharing his square? Or is there something I missed about tiny or smaller creatures not providing soft cover?That would depend on several factors, but one which I've only just realized is, barring special abilities or spells (such as familiar pocket), a Tiny familiar should not be permitted to share your space in combat, since it is only 2 sizes smaller than its master (presuming a Medium PC); bats or toads could, however, since they are Diminutive. But that's another topic... ;) In combat, you effectively take up your entire square; since the familiar cannot be "between" you and the person attacking you, I (personally) would say "no", they don't provide cover. A DM could also rule that the smaller creature provides a correspondingly smaller amount of cover by extrapolating the Varying Degrees of Cover text-- I think a reasonable amount might be +2 for a Small creature, +1 for Tiny, and +0 for Diminutive or smaller, i.e., if they are small enought to move unhindered through your space, how can they provide you with cover. I will admit, however, that this treads a fine line between house rule and invoking the "DM's Best Friend". Also... I was actually thinking about the rule for sharing/moving through a space with a creature two (three?) sizes larger than you.In researching the above, I came across a passage that may apply to one of our earlier questions, namely "Do defendsers in your own space get cover from your attacks?" I think the answer is "No", and that the aforementioned "Benefit" from Underfoot Combat is specific to that feat. I say this because the section on Big and Little Creatures in Combat states (in talking about AoOs): "[Creatures with nat reach of 0'] must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally." IMO, that "normally" means they don't gain any benefit from soft cover by being in your square...
Howie23 05-15-06, 02:05 PM	That would depend on several factors, but one which I've only just realized is, barring special abilities or spells (such as familiar pocket), a Tiny familiar should not be permitted to share your space in combat, since it is only 2 sizes smaller than its master (presuming a Medium PC); bats or toads could, however, since they are Diminutive. But that's another topic... ;) Two Tiny creatures can share a space with a Medium creature. (DMG p. 29, Mixing It Up) A Tiny familiar may have problems being in the same spell as a Small wizard, but not with a Medium wizard. David
viceregal 05-15-06, 10:30 PM	Initially in our gaming group there was resistance to the whole soft cover vs reach but that is now working out fine. The new area where there is some variation is that some feel that a character with a reach weapon does not get an AoO due to soft cover when 'making an attack into a non-adjacent square with a reach weapon' but that a large or greater creature with 10' or more of *natural* reach (ie not technically a reach weapon) don't have to worry about that. I am thinking that any reach/non-adjacent attack counts but is there any support for the alternate interpretation? Thanks :) Warren
Casebier 05-17-06, 04:18 PM	One other thing to remember with reach weapons... There are many examples of multiple rows of spearmen. Every single example I've seen includes the +4 bonus to AC due to the cover the person in front of you provides. This makes sense, because you have to reach around the person in the way in order to make an attack. John Jr
Gelth 09-14-06, 11:07 AM	Mechanically, I know of no difference between reach gained from size and reach gained from a reach weapon. On a related note, regarding cover and size, does anyone have a specific rules citation on what creatures can provide cover and under what circumstances? I apply cover penalties if the cover is at least as large as the target, but I know of people who apply the penalty if the cover is at least as large as the attacker, or other variants. At what point is the cover too small or the attacker too large for cover to apply? --Penn, Ket Triad
Arvagor 09-14-06, 12:22 PM	Mechanically, I know of no difference between reach gained from size and reach gained from a reach weapon.A creature with 10' natural reach (usually a Large or larger creature) can attack any square within range. A creature wielding a reach weapon (excluding the weird stuff like whips or spiked chains), can only attack creatures at the range of the weapon, and not those creatures adjacent to him. I thought that was the first and foremost rule we learn about reach?
ShinAkuma2 09-14-06, 12:38 PM	My problem is, if they didn't intend for it to apply to reach weapons as well, the errata is pointless, because their is no situation I can think of that would grant soft cover to an adjacent enemy anyway...although I suppose the errata was necessary to make soft cover apply to ranged attacks... As you said, it had to be done to allow soft cover for ranged attacks. However, one important thing to consider is that cover, even soft cover, can prevent AoOs. You'd have soft cover when moving though an ally's square, which would protect you from reach attacks, but not adjacent attacks. Anyway, this has been argued to death on the main boards. Ranged weapons are subject to soft cover. Reach attacks use rules of ranged weapons to determine cover. Therefore, reach attacks are subject to soft cover. This has been confirmed by CustServ, the WotC website, and a logical reading of the errata itself.
Gelth 09-14-06, 01:43 PM	Well, of course reach weapons don't allow you to attack adjacent squares, but I don't see that that applies to how cover works. What I should have said is that I don't see how the two differe in any relevant way. :) Incidentally, don't the rules specify that you don't gain cover from sharing an ally's square? --Penn, Ket Triad
trollbill 09-14-06, 01:54 PM	As long as we are on the subject, how does Enlarge Person + Reach Weapon work exactly? I know that if I Enlarge Person someone with a Longspear, they now have a 20 ft. Reach, but how does that effect their blind spot? Does Enlarge Person + Reach: a) Double both the blind spot and the threatened area giving the wielder a 10 ft. blind spot and a 10 ft. threat circle beyond that? b) Double the reach but not the threat area giving the wielder a 15 ft. blind spot and a 5 ft. threat circle beyond that? c) Still only give a blind spot to the adjacent square giving the wielder a 5 ft. blind spot and a 15 ft. threat circle beyone that? Where in the rules does it answer this question?
Gelth 09-14-06, 02:44 PM	I believe that enlarging doubles your normal reach, and reach weapons specify that you can't attack within your normal reach, but can attack out to double that. This a large humanoid with a reach weapon can't attack at 5' and 10', but can attack at 15' and 20'. --Penn, Ket Triad
chesspiece 09-14-06, 03:40 PM	Correct. And as for where in the rules... http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#reachWeapons This probably corresponds to the Weapons section of the PHB. - Stephen Martin, Ket Player
shuntsbe 09-15-06, 12:38 AM	However, one important thing to consider is that cover, even soft cover, can prevent AoOs. You'd have soft cover when moving though an ally's square, which would protect you from reach attacks, but not adjacent attacks. Anyway, this has been argued to death on the main boards. Ranged weapons are subject to soft cover. Reach attacks use rules of ranged weapons to determine cover. Therefore, reach attacks are subject to soft cover. Well, I think that the opposite rules interpretation is still valid. Reach attacks use the rules of ranged weapons to determine cover, but whether that cover (soft or hard) provides any attack penalty or other modifier, is subject to the rules pertaining the cover type. Hard or Soft cover penalizes ranged weapons. Hard cover penalizes melee weapons. Thus, Soft cover does not penalize melee weapons. Soft Cover Reach Weapons ======================== http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover 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). * This describes how to determine cover for ranged attacks. When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. * This describes how to determine cover for melee attacks. * The second sentence describes only how to determine cover, i.e. from one corner of your square to any target corner. It does not say anything about hard cover versus soft cover. * Note this applies to natural reach, as well as reach weapons. 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. * This describes how creatures provide cover against ranged attacks. However, it does not describe how creatures provide cover against melee attacks. Creatures do not provide cover against melee attacks. Hence "Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks." * The phrase "against ranged attacks" is the key to this argument. * Note the lack of any mention of Attack of Opportunity protection, while both Reflex Saves and Hide Checks are explictly mentioned. This is likely to be due to ranged weapons not threatening. Note Arrow Mind and similar effects are not part of the SRD. This has been confirmed by CustServ, the WotC website, and a logical reading of the errata itself. Regarding CustServ and the WotC website, could you post links to them? I still think this is unclear and subject to judge interpretation, therefore any official position will help to simplify the matter wrt Living Greyhawk.
pedr 09-15-06, 07:47 AM	Regarding CustServ and the WotC website, could you post links to them? I still think this is unclear and subject to judge interpretation, therefore any official position will help to simplify the matter wrt Living Greyhawk.http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ask. You'll have to scroll through all the answers or search the page to find it. The question/answer is: 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).
kjenks 09-15-06, 08:01 AM	The revised Ask Wizards answer matches my interpretation from 05-13-06.