Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bringslite 01-07-05, 10:52 PM	Are there any rules allowing a creature/PC/NPC with a reach weapon to attack through an allies square? Such as massed ranks of longspear armed soldiers.
DemnYosh 01-07-05, 11:01 PM	Not really sure, but i would think that its possible but at -4 to attack because of cover.
fireangel37 01-07-05, 11:57 PM	As far as I know, that is correct. Intervening allies would give soft cover to your target and (I think) prevent you from making AoOs on opponents past them.
Bringslite 01-08-05, 12:06 AM	So a massed phalanx of spearmen several ranks deep is less effective (due to the penaties) than a loose horde. :rolleyes:
Shazarn 01-08-05, 12:12 AM	A massed phalanx of pikemen wouldn't be a 5 foot square per person, they would be squished together and in a five foot square you might get 12-15 people.
olshanski_home 01-08-05, 12:18 AM	A character with a reach weapon attacking through an ally suffers a -4 due to cover. However, that character could also choose to "aid another" in which case they only have to hit an AC 10, and the ally would get a +2 to attack or AC. At lower levels this is a valid tactic. It also works good when you have multiple kobolds with longspears aiding a front-line gnoll type creature.
Neofish 01-08-05, 12:24 AM	A massed phalanx of pikemen wouldn't be a 5 foot square per person, they would be squished together and in a five foot square you might get 12-15 people. or maybe 4, c'mon.
Tevish Szat 01-08-05, 12:33 AM	would a phalanx then have the swarm subtype? ;) Seriously though, a phalanx is more effective than a loose horde even with the penalty. Why? a rabble attacking an orginized will lose as they charge into set reach weapons, and more so as they meet a fromtline of tower shields for total cover against a back row of nasty pikes.
Neofish 01-08-05, 12:37 AM	They really should have made a pike with a 15' reach....
Shazarn 01-08-05, 12:41 AM	No i mean if you have a bunch of people protecting with pikes against a charging horse then they are going to be quite close together. And you could get 4 people in a row in five feet, and if you gave a foot between each row of people then that is 20 people in a 5' square. We seem to forget how big the five feet a person needs to fight by him self efectively is, but in the army for marching you can fit more then 4 people in a five foot square (i know personally) and you could definetively give them pikes and they would have enough room to manuver if they were holding them straight up and setting them for charges when needed.
FriendoftheDork 01-08-05, 10:05 AM	more than one character could fight in a 5' square, but that would mean penalties for close quarters. Of course, stabbing weapons are easier to use in cramped quarters so spears should do pretty good. You could just bend the rules or make new ones to incorporate pike fighting.
WunderGoat 01-09-05, 11:49 PM	Personaly I solved this issue by creating a feat called formation fighting, which makes you provide no cover to enemies vs attacks your allys with this feat make. Your allys have -2 to hit, so they are not as effective. I also made an exotic pike with 15' reach. The trouble I ran into with that is cavalry armed with this monstrosity can really put the hurt on spear-equipped infantry
astute1 01-10-05, 12:09 AM	The opponents get cover, so you'd have -4 to hit them. However, look at it the other way: You're getting an attack at them, which you wouldn't if you didn't have a reach weapon. After all, which is better: an attack at -4, or no attack at all? Also, since you're likely using a polearm, you can ready against a charge and do double damage when they try to charge the guy in front of you.
Munz 01-10-05, 09:28 AM	According to the Errata made for the 3.5 Player's Handbook, Soft Cover is granted for Ranged Combat only. Now my DM argues that Reach Weapons are treated as Ranged weapons in this instance. But I would disagree. Reach weapons are Melee weapons, you can just as easily swing around or over your ally as you could a sword. The reasoning for a Ranged Weapon to have the Soft Cover penalty is because it has to go THROUGH a straight trajectory, in which case the player could be in the way. My ruling as a Novice DM is this: Melee weapons you can swing around or over your ally (thus negating the soft cover), Ranged Weapons have to go through a straight line. Side note: You will find the rules for Soft Cover in the newer Leather Bound Player's Handbook already Errated. I've looked into it myself and compared it to another copy of the PHB right next to it. Hope this helps.
astute1 01-10-05, 10:38 AM	You're right, Munz! I never noticed that! I think that's really going to change the way we play - people with reach weapons are going to get a lot more Attacks of Opportunity if other creatures don't provide cover. That's really interesting - I wonder why they changed it. In the light of the errata, I revise my ruling to: There's no cover, go ahead and attack.
Munz 01-10-05, 11:09 AM	This might be a house ruling on my DM's part (Because I'm not sure where the rulings would be for such a thing), or maybe I saw it recommended as an alternater ruling from Sage Advice or something... but anyways, here's another way we deal with weapons that have reach: Since you can use a weapon that you're not familiar with by taking a -4 penalty to attack, and most weapons with reach have a long staff or rod or pole to them, we treat being able to take Attacks of Opportunity on adjacent spaces albeit at a -4 penalty. Basically it is treated as though you have just whacked them with a quarterstaff for purposes of damage and critical adjustment. It's just a fun way to add a sense of realism to the use of Reach Weapons. Sure their business end is what deals the most damage and can make those trip or disarm attempts, but c'mon; what's to say you can't just smack someone with the staff as well? I mean after all, you can take a -4 penalty with any other melee weapon to use the broad side of the blade to deal subdual damage. Hope that gives you another idea to use.
Aurum 01-10-05, 03:05 PM	Here's a couple ideas on why a phalanx might have an advantage. First of all, the second rank of spearfighters can set itself to receive a charge without actually risking a hit, while the first rank fights defensively. So, both ranks take a penalty to hit, but the front rank gets a higher AC and the back rank gets a chance at a free critical. Second, the front rank can aid the back rank. Most of the time, a front rank can hit AC 10 even with a -4 for fighting defensively. This would give the front rank a +4 AC, and the back rank a reduced -2 to hit, which is a net gain. Since the front rank often focuses on a higher AC and the back rank uses heavier-damage weapons, this might be favorable to the back rank aiding the front. The one error I see is that cover prevents AoOs from happening, which is a phalanx's big advantage (one person can provoke a _lot_ of AoOs from a phalanx). Since creatures are usually considered 'soft cover', I use a house rule that soft cover does not prevent AoOs, but you still get the cover bonus of +4. I might also consider a house rule that an aided ally being given a bonus to attack considers your space to be unoccupied, if you are the only one in it.
olshanski_home 01-10-05, 03:12 PM	Well done, Munz.
IceFractal 01-10-05, 05:41 PM	Did I hear a request for a 15' pike? By coincidence I happen to have just statted one out, in a post on the "Equipment & Combat" board. The post is called "A weapon for the watch, and a really long spear", and should be on the first or second page as its pretty recent. If you can't find it, tell me and I'll repost the info here.
Aeromus 01-10-05, 05:47 PM	Munz, you shall no longer be a Novice DM, but a respected value to the community. Well done.
Nom 01-10-05, 09:01 PM	According to the Errata made for the 3.5 Player's Handbook, Soft Cover is granted for Ranged Combat only. Now my DM argues that Reach Weapons are treated as Ranged weapons in this instance.Your DM is correct. The errata corrects the error in the PH that states that "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against melee attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC". This should state "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC". You never get soft cover against adjacent targets, only hard cover. When dealing with non-adjacent targets, you use the ranged rules, even with a melee weapon. "When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks." This is a general rule for cover presented in the introduction - it doesn't get more explicit than that. But I would disagree. Reach weapons are Melee weapons, you can just as easily swing around or over your ally as you could a sword. The reasoning for a Ranged Weapon to have the Soft Cover penalty is because it has to go THROUGH a straight trajectory, in which case the player could be in the way.Let's try a simple experiment. Get a long stick. Try to poke someone with it. Now have another person stand between you and the person you are trying to poke, with both of them moving. I suspect you'll find it a little bit harder. That's called cover. Note that the "reach weapons treated as ranged weapon" rule only applies to cover. Using a reach weapon does not provoke an AoO, nor does it suffer the -4 shooting into melee penalty, since neither of these are due to cover.
Bringslite 01-10-05, 10:25 PM	All very good points and ideas guys. Thanks for all the good feedback on what seems to be a perplexing rules oversight. IIRC, the phalanx was a powerful military formation against the typical armies of the day and good for both defence and offence. I suppose it still could be with some houserules for 2 medium figures in a sguare and taking into account AoO, some special feats for formation fighting, aid another, etc... The increased number of attacks against one target could yield some desent results. Again, thanks to all!!! :)
Nom 01-11-05, 08:28 AM	When it comes to military formations, you need to remember that D&D is a game of skirmishes, not armies. Formations and long "spears" work when you have a tight packed group of well trained troops who know what direction the enemy is coming from. If the formation uses large shields, they will also have a short stabbing weapon to use once the enemy closes inside spear range. However, close formations have a big disadvantage. The best of them manouevre poorly. Less well trained troops turn into a disorganised rabble if flanked. Long spears in formation work great if the enemy obligingly charges you. They become a major liability if the enemy runs around to your flank and you have to reorient without entangling your squad-mates. Generally, it's easier in D&D to limit encounters to skirmishes, thus assuming loose formations and avoiding these problems. If you really want tight formations, consider the "squeezing" rules (PH pg 148) and apply them as soon as the formation is "broken". I would consider a formation without a shield wall "broken" as soon as they began taking missile damage or were within melee threat range of an opponent (resolve AoOs and readied actions first). A wall of tower shields might allow a particularly well trained squad to maintain formation even under close melee attack.