Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jaime_Wolf 04-10-07, 02:44 AM	So, I make a character based on using a lance and then, right as I'm about to attack, learn that the DM is suddenly using a variant where there's a 20% chance of stabbing an ally if they are providing soft cover. That's right, not a 20% chance of hitting the ally if you miss the enemy, just a flat 20% chance. Thus if I use my lance from behind an ally (which I usually must as the enemies try to run up to me), I have a 20% chance of damaging my ally with every attack. The greatest part is that I pointed out that this is unfair for reach weapons as ranged weapon wielders can take precise shot to negate it while I can't. His response, "So don't use a reach weapon." Ugh. Can anyone help me avoid this, perhaps by somehow negating the soft cover penalty using a reach weapon?
KillerGM 04-10-07, 03:05 AM	Well, if the DM wants to keep the house rule, I'd ask to be able to take a feat to negate it in order to use reach weapons. If he won't allow that, I'd ask to rebuild the character so as not to be focused in reach weapons (as you imply). If you had known about the house rule, you would not have built the character that way, right? To be honest, I think it's a silly house rule, but it's ultimately up to the DM. Talking to him outside of the game might work, but if he likes the rule, there's really no forcing him to change it, or humiliating him into changing it. But I would ask to rebuild a character, so I wouldn't be focused on using a weapon that suffers in a way that I couldn't anticipate. If he doesn't let you rebuild him, just keep it going. Let the house rule show for itself how dumb it is. Maybe you can get your fellow players to overthrow him, if every time you hit your ally, you say "Man, what a great house rule." And then laugh. Ok, that last suggestion is more petty than anything else. Try talking him into changing it, maybe asking for a new feat option, rebuilding your character, or asking to make a new character, or "dying" in game, or overthrowing the DM. In that order, I think. ;) Hope it helps! :D
Archangel_James 04-10-07, 04:40 AM	Ask for a houseruled enchantment to negate this rule, then kill important NPCs and take their money to pay for it.
Fatalis_902 04-10-07, 06:11 AM	Or take short haft from PHB2, and start your offensive while they are away from you, and switch to melee when they get close. It doesn't change the houserule, but it is a start at working around it. Of course, you should probably talk to your DM about fixing the rule, as it is pretty silly. If he won't, try Short Haft, or find another way around it.
BW0222 04-10-07, 12:54 PM	Jaime_Wolf, So, I make a character based on using a lance and then, right as I'm about to attack, learn that the DM is suddenly using a variant where there's a 20% chance of stabbing an ally if they are providing soft cover. That's right, not a 20% chance of hitting the ally if you miss the enemy, just a flat 20% chance. If your DM came up with this rule after you made up your character... Thank him for inviting you to the campaign and then leave. If he asks why you are leaving. Let him know that you weren't informed of this 'house rule' prior to agreeing to play. Honestly, what's the point in finding a way around this 'rule' when your DM will just invent a new house rule to nerf that? I mean there are thousands of rules and the one he decides to chance is the one which nerfs your character build? If isn't fun playing a game where the rules change after the game starts. No one agrees to play football when the game switches to 8 players after the first quarter, forward passes are banned after you drafted a good passes, and they switch to three downs just as you are on the 15 yard line and threatening to score.
MasterOfPsychic 04-10-07, 01:55 PM	Jaime_Wolf, If your DM came up with this rule after you made up your character... Thank him for inviting you to the campaign and then leave. If he asks why you are leaving. Let him know that you weren't informed of this 'house rule' prior to agreeing to play. Honestly, what's the point in finding a way around this 'rule' when your DM will just invent a new house rule to nerf that? I mean there are thousands of rules and the one he decides to chance is the one which nerfs your character build? If isn't fun playing a game where the rules change after the game starts. No one agrees to play football when the game switches to 8 players after the first quarter, forward passes are banned after you drafted a good passes, and they switch to three downs just as you are on the 15 yard line and threatening to score. You are totally overreacting. Even though the house rule might be a tad unfair, I see reason to just take the stuff and leave, because the DM isn't being a total jerk, only a bit incomprehensible on this matter. Losing a friend over a game is not worth the risk. Jaime_Wolf, you can complain, and even demand to have a feat to adjust for his house rule. However, what you should do is ask him "Why?", and get an explanation for him rather than complain to us. If you find his logic to be stupid, then you should argue why he is wrong. If you cannot agree, then come here again and explain the arguments of each part. Is this to balance things out? Tell that it would nerf you below the other PCs. Is it for realism? Tell him this it unrealistical that a trained soldier specialized in reach-weapons isn't able to use them safely, thus the feat to remove this rule. Try discuss the matter with your DM. Find out not only what he did, but also WHY he did it. Than tell him what you exactly think.
Jaime_Wolf 04-11-07, 11:07 PM	If you look closely at my post, you'll notice that I'm not coming here and "complaining" with no purpose. Can anyone help me avoid this, perhaps by somehow negating the soft cover penalty using a reach weapon? And as for why, he thinks it's more realistic because attacking through the square means there is at least some chance of hitting the character. Why realism matters for this particular action matters, I'm not entirely sure. In a game where a berson can be submerged in a pool of acid, drink a bottle of bleach, get stabbed several times and have an axe hack into them repeatedly to be perfectly fine in a couple of days of bed rest, I'm curious as to why there's this sudden need for realism. When I asked if this meant that normal melee attacks had a chance of hitting adjacent characters in case the attack missed and the attacker overswung, everyone at the table looked at me as if the analogy was ridiculous. As for the reason why everyone else backs him up, my favourite line: he's the DM, he decides what goes (the beauty of this is that none of the others say it when it's THEIR characters that just got gimped for the sake of "realism").
pres_man 04-12-07, 12:26 AM	The way to negate soft cover is to move to a different location before attacking. Use this rule to your advantage, attack foes behind OTHER FOES. You have a 20% of hitting the front guy, that means you have a 20% of getting the advantage of using a non-reach weapon. Also argue this means that you 20% of the time also threaten adjacent squares and so that 20% of the time you can take attacks of opportunity against foes in adjacent squares. Do they foes still get the +4 AC bonus for the cover. To me that would sound like a double penalty, the DM should pick one or the other, since the penalty is there just because you are trying not to hit the cover. Also when you face large creatures and smaller foes, keep the smaller foe between you and the large creature, then make your DM roll a 20% of hitting the smaller foe each time the larger one tries to attack. It is obvious that your DM: a) doesn't know the reach weapon rules. b) doesn't like reach weapons. c) doesn't understand that the rules are there for balance. d) has his head up his nether regions. e) hasn't a clue as to ancient military tactics (shield wall in front, spearbears behind, anyone?) f) all of the above. You'll have to either suck it up and deal or ditch the group. Life is too short to game with morons.
perdera 04-12-07, 06:13 PM	Thus if I use my lance from behind an ally (which I usually must as the enemies try to run up to me), I have a 20% chance of damaging my ally with every attack. The greatest part is that I pointed out that this is unfair for reach weapons as ranged weapon wielders can take precise shot to negate it while I can't. That's not exactly accurate. Precise Shot negates the -4 penalty for firing into melee. The archer could have a straight line to the enemy, with no cover between them, and still suffer that -4 penalty. Basically what I'm trying to say is that feat isn't to negate any sort of cover, it's to negate something different. Unfortunately, his ruling kind of makes sense. Using plain cover rules, your enemy would be receiving a +4 circumstance bonus to his AC. Here's a scenario: Your enemy has 22AC. You're attacking him through an ally, so your enemy has a 26AC against you. So assuming we wanted some sort of mechanic to keep track of if you just miss or hit the cover, let's say that if you hit in the extended AC range provided by the cover, you hit the cover. So, if you hit a 26+ you hit your enemy. If you hit a 22,23,24,25 you hit the cover. If you hit a 21- you miss as normal. 22,23,24,25 -- A 20% chance to hit the cover. Now, doing it this way rather than a random 20% chance would work better for you against low AC enemies, or if you could crank your To Hit super high. In the scenario above, if your To Hit was so high that a roll of 2 added up to a hit roll of 24 you'd be down to only a 10% chance of hitting the cover (on a roll of 2 or 3 -- 24 or 25). So, like I said, I'm afraid your DM is making some sense here. I'd suggest two changes (if he insists on tracking this and if you want to deal with it): 1) Change the determination of if you hit the cover or not to the example above--if you hit within the extended AC range provided by the cover then you hit the cover. 2) Introduce a feat to reduce the circumstance bonus to AC that enemies receive from soft cover only to 2; against reach weapons. Corollary) Don't forget to account for size. Assuming you're a Medium character, if your ally is Small- or your enemy is Large+ these penalties should lessen/disappear.
pres_man 04-12-07, 07:14 PM	That's not exactly accurate. Precise Shot negates the -4 penalty for firing into melee. The archer could have a straight line to the enemy, with no cover between them, and still suffer that -4 penalty. Basically what I'm trying to say is that feat isn't to negate any sort of cover, it's to negate something different. I think he meant improved precise shot that does remove the cover bonus. Unfortunately, his ruling kind of makes sense. Using plain cover rules, your enemy would be receiving a +4 circumstance bonus to his AC. Here's a scenario: Actually it doesn't. Since he is physically incapable of attacking into an adjacent square, saying he hit the "cover" is equivalent to attacking the square is silly. Are people now going to start keeping track of when you hit a wall when someone is using that as cover? No, he is trying to use a rule for range attacks in 3rd edition, for reach weapons in 3.5. How an arrow travels through a square to reach the square behind it is totally different then how the tip of a lance is used to hit the square behind it. Your enemy has 22AC. You're attacking him through an ally, so your enemy has a 26AC against you. So assuming we wanted some sort of mechanic to keep track of if you just miss or hit the cover, let's say that if you hit in the extended AC range provided by the cover, you hit the cover. So, if you hit a 26+ you hit your enemy. If you hit a 22,23,24,25 you hit the cover. If you hit a 21- you miss as normal. Which was always a little stupid. If you shoot really well, but just not well enough you hit your friend. But if you shoot awful (hit AC 10, 11, 12, 13), you're fine. Shouldn't it be the other way (roll a natural 1-4, have a chance of hitting)? Also the player should roll a second attack to see if it hits the ally. If the ally has say a 30 AC, he shouldn't get hit by something that wouldn't hit him even it was targetting him directly. Though to the OPer, I would say, if the rest of the group loves the idea, then great. Just continue attacking from behind, if you hit them, just say, "Hey, don't look at me. I wanted to play the rules as written, you guys wanted this houserule."
perdera 04-13-07, 10:56 AM	Yeah, I'm having a hard time coming up with something reasonable that might appease the OPs DM. OP, just wave the SRD at your DM and if he persists on his own variant there's not too much we can do. Tell him this: My enemies get a +4 AC from the cover. I can't take attacks of opportunity through the cover. I can't attack the squares adjacent to me. Don't penalize me further! If he STILL insists on his variant, try to explain the points in this thread to him: 1) Why do I just hit my ally automatically 20% of the time, ignoring his AC? 2) How am I even attacking into that square with a reach weapon? 3) At the very least, can my attack deal half damage to my ally...it's not like I'm FULL ON stabbing him in the back. 4) Would being bigger negate the penalty some? Would an Enlarge knock the chance down to 10%? 5) Will you modify that 20% based on ally and enemy size? Honestly, if he sticks with this I'd just make a different character, that ruling is a pretty good slap against reach weapons. I don't see how those Spartans fought so well what with them stabbing each other in the back all the time. Stupid revisionist history. 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. Low Obstacles and Cover A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target. Cover and Attacks of Opportunity You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you. Cover and Reflex Saves Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus. Cover and Hide Checks You can use cover to make a Hide check. Without cover, you usually need concealment to make a Hide check. 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. 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. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you. Total Cover If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover. Varying Degrees of Cover In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checks.
RainerNader 04-13-07, 07:52 PM	I used to be in a game where the DM would randomly enforce rules for the sake of "realism." This would be a perfect example. He does have a point, using a polearm 'through' an ally to attack an enemy would usually invoke some sort of consequence in reality, but as several point have already pointed out, the combat rules in D&D were never meant to simulate reality. So, my suggestion is to try and take that argument to the DM. As other posters have mentioned, using a reach weapon through an ally already results in significant consequences. Not only will this help you win this argument, but also discourage him from implementing other random house rules for the sake of 'realism.'