Whirlwind+reach [Archive] - Wizards Community

Whirlwind+reach [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
nasuma
03-11-08, 07:00 PM Can a character with reach (say 10 feet) target foes that are behind others. That is, can you attack two rows of foes if you have 10 ft reach with whirlwind.
BugHunter
03-11-08, 08:04 PM "When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach."

Yes, notice the under line text. So imagine how much space you can control being enlarged with a reach weapon.
ToastedAmphibian
03-11-08, 08:10 PM Yes, notice the under line text. So imagine how much space you can control being enlarged with a reach weapon.

Bug Hunter is correct. But some rules to keep in mind:
A reach weapon is not as good as natural reach, when using a reach weapon, any creature between you and your target provides your target "Soft Cover" as per a ranged attack. This means they get a +4 bonus to their armor class, and that you cannot make attacks of opportunity on them. These limitations do not apply with natural reach, only reach weapons

If your using a spiked chain with whirlwind, everyone in the second row will get a +4 bonus to AC unless you can draw a line from a corner of any square you occupy to a corner of any square they occupy that dosnt pass through anyone elses squares.
JamesMaissen
03-12-08, 01:14 AM Bug Hunter is correct. But some rules to keep in mind:
A reach weapon is not as good as natural reach, when using a reach weapon, any creature between you and your target provides your target "Soft Cover" as per a ranged attack. This means they get a +4 bonus to their armor class, and that you cannot make attacks of opportunity on them. These limitations do not apply with natural reach, only reach weapons

You will get variation here. However the situation above is not valid in either form of that variation.

There is no difference between natural reach and a reach weapon like a spiked chain which is what the poster above is saying.

However there are two camps:

1. Soft cover applies to non-adjacent attacks.
2. Soft cover applies only to ranged attacks.

Both have their proponents and the like... but regardless in which camp you find yourself the above is in error.

Towards the original poster, if you cannot afford the use of a spiked chain then I suggest a normal reach weapon and armor spikes.

James
nasuma
03-12-08, 03:01 PM So (provided we use the soft cover rules, which makes way more sense than the alternative), lets go a step further. Let's say a huge creature with whirlwind attacks. He can hit 15 ft away. Does the second line give more cover to the third row of guys. That is, does the guy 15 ft away get +8 from cover?
ToastedAmphibian
03-12-08, 05:07 PM His natural reach is 15ft. Noone within 15ft gets cover from his melee attacks. If he where to use a reach weapon, anyone between 20ft and 30ft away would be eligable for cover. But no, anyone who has soft cover gets a +4 Bonus, regardless of how many creatures are in the way.

Edit: Hmm, i cant find where i got the idea that natural reach functions diffrently than reach weapons when determining cover...... so i could be wrong about that.
Merestil Haye
03-12-08, 07:11 PM The SRD says this about reach and cover :When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.The rules on determining cover when you are attacking a target not adjacent to you apply whether you have natural reach or a reach weapon.

In general a creature with a reach weapon cannot be attacking a target adjacent to them - very few weapons can attack into adjacent squares and squares at a distance. But if they can, or possess natural reach, cover rules only apply when they are attacking a target and some creature or object is between them and the target.
risner
03-12-08, 08:42 PM 1. Soft cover applies to non-adjacent attacks.
2. Soft cover applies only to ranged attacks.

PHB page 151 is explicit.
If you make a melee (not ranged) attack against a non adjacent target, use the rules for ranged attack to determine cover.

In other words, anyone suggesting #2 is the correct interpretation is house ruling (unless they have an explicit post errata line in the PHB that says different.)

So what he said is right, if there is any creature between the you and a target you can attack with reach then their AC is increase by the amount specified for cover.
JamesMaissen
03-13-08, 04:34 PM PHB page 151 is explicit.
If you make a melee (not ranged) attack against a non adjacent target, use the rules for ranged attack to determine cover.

In other words, anyone suggesting #2 is the correct interpretation is house ruling (unless they have an explicit post errata line in the PHB that says different.)

So what he said is right, if there is any creature between the you and a target you can attack with reach then their AC is increase by the amount specified for cover.

If you want to go into it fine. The PhB errata says that soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Perhaps that's what you are missing.

Now the quote that you provided says that you use the rules for *determining* cover, not for *applying* cover. There is an important distinction here.

There are two ways for determining cover in the books.. one is for adjacent melee attacks and the other is for ranged attacks. To whit an adjacent melee attack needs to draw ALL lines between the two squares and a larger creature can be considered as just one of the squares they occupy. Meanwhile a ranged attack picks the best corner of the attacker's space and needs to draw lines to all corners of the target's squares.

So the statement to *determine* cover one way or the other has meaning.

Now when you go to apply cover some things apply and some things do not. Creatures do not apply a penalty for melee attacks, even though they may be determined as cover for the attack. For example if you have 3 medium creatures (2 adjacent facing off 1 opponent) fighting then the 1 fighting the two would find cover against one of his opponents.. but since the cover is provided by a creature and not a wall (or other solid object) the type of cover is 'soft cover' and as such applies no penalty even though the cover was *determined* to exist.

It does not say 'reach weapons are *treated* as ranged weapons for purposes of the cover rules' only that you *determine* cover that way. So you do just that and determine it. No more and no less. How it is applied depends upon what is giving the cover, just as with anything else.

-James
PS: and the original poster was incorrect in either case as they were saying that natural reach had different rules than reach weapons. So regardless on our respective stances on soft cover, he was in error... which was what I said.

PPS: The huge (tall) creature attacking out at 15' away would not pass through the squares of an adjacent medium creature as you would pick one of the top corners to draw your lines to the target square's corners. In fact a large (tall) creature with a reach weapon could do the same.
risner
03-13-08, 08:15 PM If you want to go into it fine. The PhB errata says that soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Perhaps that's what you are missing.

I quoted you from the errata'd books (the special leather editions.)

I am aware of the errata comment on cover and melee.

I don't see what you say invalidates what has been said? If you have a reach weapon and a creature is between you and your non-adjacent target, your target gets the benefit of cover.

I think you believe I quoted from an original PHB and you believe I was unaware of the errata? If so, you would be wrong on both counts.

With this in light, do you still believe I am missing something? If so, please explain.
JamesMaissen
03-14-08, 10:13 PM I
With this in light, do you still believe I am missing something? If so, please explain.

Well for one, perhaps that I was saying that there are two view points. For simplicities sake we may call them yours and mine. I did not say that yours was wrong, just that it was one of two and regardless of which one the poster subscribed to that he was in error in regards to natural reach being different than a reach weapon in regards to cover rules.

Now if you wish to debate the two view points, I would suggest that we start a different thread, so as not to hijack the original poster more than we already have done here. My thoughts are roughly outlined in prior posts.

-James

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nasuma 03-11-08, 07:00 PM	Can a character with reach (say 10 feet) target foes that are behind others. That is, can you attack two rows of foes if you have 10 ft reach with whirlwind.
BugHunter 03-11-08, 08:04 PM	"When you use the full attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your full base attack bonus against each opponent within reach." Yes, notice the under line text. So imagine how much space you can control being enlarged with a reach weapon.
ToastedAmphibian 03-11-08, 08:10 PM	Yes, notice the under line text. So imagine how much space you can control being enlarged with a reach weapon. Bug Hunter is correct. But some rules to keep in mind: A reach weapon is not as good as natural reach, when using a reach weapon, any creature between you and your target provides your target "Soft Cover" as per a ranged attack. This means they get a +4 bonus to their armor class, and that you cannot make attacks of opportunity on them. These limitations do not apply with natural reach, only reach weapons If your using a spiked chain with whirlwind, everyone in the second row will get a +4 bonus to AC unless you can draw a line from a corner of any square you occupy to a corner of any square they occupy that dosnt pass through anyone elses squares.
JamesMaissen 03-12-08, 01:14 AM	Bug Hunter is correct. But some rules to keep in mind: A reach weapon is not as good as natural reach, when using a reach weapon, any creature between you and your target provides your target "Soft Cover" as per a ranged attack. This means they get a +4 bonus to their armor class, and that you cannot make attacks of opportunity on them. These limitations do not apply with natural reach, only reach weapons You will get variation here. However the situation above is not valid in either form of that variation. There is no difference between natural reach and a reach weapon like a spiked chain which is what the poster above is saying. However there are two camps: 1. Soft cover applies to non-adjacent attacks. 2. Soft cover applies only to ranged attacks. Both have their proponents and the like... but regardless in which camp you find yourself the above is in error. Towards the original poster, if you cannot afford the use of a spiked chain then I suggest a normal reach weapon and armor spikes. James
nasuma 03-12-08, 03:01 PM	So (provided we use the soft cover rules, which makes way more sense than the alternative), lets go a step further. Let's say a huge creature with whirlwind attacks. He can hit 15 ft away. Does the second line give more cover to the third row of guys. That is, does the guy 15 ft away get +8 from cover?
ToastedAmphibian 03-12-08, 05:07 PM	His natural reach is 15ft. Noone within 15ft gets cover from his melee attacks. If he where to use a reach weapon, anyone between 20ft and 30ft away would be eligable for cover. But no, anyone who has soft cover gets a +4 Bonus, regardless of how many creatures are in the way. Edit: Hmm, i cant find where i got the idea that natural reach functions diffrently than reach weapons when determining cover...... so i could be wrong about that.
Merestil Haye 03-12-08, 07:11 PM	The SRD says this about reach and cover :When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.The rules on determining cover when you are attacking a target not adjacent to you apply whether you have natural reach or a reach weapon. In general a creature with a reach weapon cannot be attacking a target adjacent to them - very few weapons can attack into adjacent squares and squares at a distance. But if they can, or possess natural reach, cover rules only apply when they are attacking a target and some creature or object is between them and the target.
risner 03-12-08, 08:42 PM	1. Soft cover applies to non-adjacent attacks. 2. Soft cover applies only to ranged attacks. PHB page 151 is explicit. If you make a melee (not ranged) attack against a non adjacent target, use the rules for ranged attack to determine cover. In other words, anyone suggesting #2 is the correct interpretation is house ruling (unless they have an explicit post errata line in the PHB that says different.) So what he said is right, if there is any creature between the you and a target you can attack with reach then their AC is increase by the amount specified for cover.
JamesMaissen 03-13-08, 04:34 PM	PHB page 151 is explicit. If you make a melee (not ranged) attack against a non adjacent target, use the rules for ranged attack to determine cover. In other words, anyone suggesting #2 is the correct interpretation is house ruling (unless they have an explicit post errata line in the PHB that says different.) So what he said is right, if there is any creature between the you and a target you can attack with reach then their AC is increase by the amount specified for cover. If you want to go into it fine. The PhB errata says that soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Perhaps that's what you are missing. Now the quote that you provided says that you use the rules for determining cover, not for applying cover. There is an important distinction here. There are two ways for determining cover in the books.. one is for adjacent melee attacks and the other is for ranged attacks. To whit an adjacent melee attack needs to draw ALL lines between the two squares and a larger creature can be considered as just one of the squares they occupy. Meanwhile a ranged attack picks the best corner of the attacker's space and needs to draw lines to all corners of the target's squares. So the statement to determine cover one way or the other has meaning. Now when you go to apply cover some things apply and some things do not. Creatures do not apply a penalty for melee attacks, even though they may be determined as cover for the attack. For example if you have 3 medium creatures (2 adjacent facing off 1 opponent) fighting then the 1 fighting the two would find cover against one of his opponents.. but since the cover is provided by a creature and not a wall (or other solid object) the type of cover is 'soft cover' and as such applies no penalty even though the cover was determined to exist. It does not say 'reach weapons are treated as ranged weapons for purposes of the cover rules' only that you determine cover that way. So you do just that and determine it. No more and no less. How it is applied depends upon what is giving the cover, just as with anything else. -James PS: and the original poster was incorrect in either case as they were saying that natural reach had different rules than reach weapons. So regardless on our respective stances on soft cover, he was in error... which was what I said. PPS: The huge (tall) creature attacking out at 15' away would not pass through the squares of an adjacent medium creature as you would pick one of the top corners to draw your lines to the target square's corners. In fact a large (tall) creature with a reach weapon could do the same.
risner 03-13-08, 08:15 PM	If you want to go into it fine. The PhB errata says that soft cover does not apply to melee attacks. Perhaps that's what you are missing. I quoted you from the errata'd books (the special leather editions.) I am aware of the errata comment on cover and melee. I don't see what you say invalidates what has been said? If you have a reach weapon and a creature is between you and your non-adjacent target, your target gets the benefit of cover. I think you believe I quoted from an original PHB and you believe I was unaware of the errata? If so, you would be wrong on both counts. With this in light, do you still believe I am missing something? If so, please explain.
JamesMaissen 03-14-08, 10:13 PM	I With this in light, do you still believe I am missing something? If so, please explain. Well for one, perhaps that I was saying that there are two view points. For simplicities sake we may call them yours and mine. I did not say that yours was wrong, just that it was one of two and regardless of which one the poster subscribed to that he was in error in regards to natural reach being different than a reach weapon in regards to cover rules. Now if you wish to debate the two view points, I would suggest that we start a different thread, so as not to hijack the original poster more than we already have done here. My thoughts are roughly outlined in prior posts. -James