Something like Hunter's Aim, but for melee weapons.
Thanks for your help!
Assuming most melee attacks occur to adjacent squares, what would you be trying to hit that has less than total cover form you that is still adjacent to you?
Theres lots of things..... like low walls and such. They show up plenty in modules.
Assuming most melee attacks occur to adjacent squares, what would you be trying to hit that has less than total cover form you that is still adjacent to you?
And around corners, through wide mesh, etc.
Cover can apply next to something easily.
I can't think of any feats which remove melee cover or concealment offhand though. It might not be too OP to convert an existing ranged feat of the type you're after to melee attacks, though. Ask the DM.
Ranged cover reduces how well or how much you can see of your target. Good aim is all that is needed to hit. The only thing that any feat or power that "reduces cover" against a ranged attack requires is that it improves your aim.
Melee cover reduces how well you can reach your target. It might reduce how close you can get to your target (a hedge). It might reduce how easily you can swing your weapon (a low ceiling). It might reduce how balanced you can be (around a corner). It might reduce your follow-through (a low wall). And it might blunt the attack altogether (a mesh screen).
I would say that a feat or power that allows you to ignore cover in melee would have a mechanic that lacks "believable" fluff. Which is fine. But something to take into consideration when such a power/feat gets created.
...Ranged cover reduces how well or how much you can see of your target. ...
We are getting off-topic, but I wanted to straighten out this misconception.
[i]Concealment[/i] (not cover) reduces how well or how much you can see of your target.
[i]Cover[/i] reduces how much of the target it is possible to hit - that is, it reduces the target's size, effectively.[/b][/i] You may still be able to see your target just fine (as in a low glass wall, for example, which would give partial cover).
There is no particular reason why, if you can take a feat to eliminate the -2 to attack from cover and concealment for ranged attacks, the same could/should not be available for melee as well. It simply represents additional training to focus on that part of the target that is either visible (concealment) or available to hit (cover).
It is no less "unrealistic" or "unbelievable" for melee as it is for ranged. Take swinging across a low wall, for example, where the target has cover. Perhaps the attacker has had additional training in how to throw one's balance forward so as to swing across and down over the wall, or simply how to focus on only the visible part of the target, ignoring the fact that half the target is covered by the wall.
Whatever.
It certainly comes up more often for ranged combat than for melee, which is probably why there is no feat for melee as of yet.
BTW, fighting around a corner (adjacent squares that are "kitty-corner" to each other) does not provide cover in melee. See PHB page 280/281. Especially the illustration on Page 281. I thought it did until I re-read that section for this discussion.
edit: The PHB rules (Page 280, which applies equally to range and melee) indicate you do not get cover from a corner, the DMG contradicts this. But then; I don't own the DMG...
Anyway, I will work with my DM to create a new feat similar to Hunter's Aim but for melee.
nevermind
Ummm... okay! ;)
BTW, fighting around a corner (adjacent squares that are "kitty-corner" to each other) does not provide cover in melee. See PHB page 280/281. Especially the illustration on Page 281. I thought it did until I re-read that section for this discussion.
Huh, I'll have to inform my players =J
BTW, fighting around a corner (adjacent squares that are "kitty-corner" to each other) does not provide cover in melee. See PHB page 280/281. Especially the illustration on Page 281. I thought it did until I re-read that section for this discussion.
Artoomis, in disbelief I went back and took a look at that section myself. I almost replied that you were surely mistaken, as the illustration on page 281 depicts cover being calculated from an area attack, not melee. And the rules on cover (page 280) start right off by explaining that a creature around a corner has cover.
But then I read further into the cover rules and got to the section governing how cover is determined:
Determining Cover: To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover.
So if we imagine that we are fighting in melee against a diagonally adjacent foe who is around a corner, we can easily draw a line from one of our square's corners to any corner of the enemy's square (since a line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square). So we don't have cover against each other's attacks.
Damn. You are so right.
EDIT: I should elaborate that there are some edge cases where melee around a corner can indeed involve cover if using a reach weapon. A simple diagram:
SSSS
SSES
SSOO
SPOO
Where S=space, E=enemy, O=object (a wall in this case) and P=player.
Our reach weapon can engage the enemy around the corner, but we can only draw lines from one of our square's corners to two of the enemy's corners. So in such a case the enemy would be granted cover against our melee attack. Not the norm, to be sure, but it is possible.
Artoomis, in disbelief I went back and took a look at that section myself...
I was pretty darn surprised myself! I am pretty certain we have not been playing that way, but them's the rules. Next time it comes up we'll play it the correct way for sure.
Getting Technical: If you need to be extremely precise, choose a square the attacker occupies and a square the defender occupies. Draw an imaginary line from every corner of the attacker’s space to every corner of the defender’s space. If even one line is obstructed, the defender has cover. (A line that runs
parallel right along a wall isn’t blocked.) - DMG page 43, DETERMINING COVER FOR MELEE ATTACKS
So with these rules, two creatures who are kitty corner would have cover for melee attacks.
The DMG has more precise rules if you wish to use them:
Getting Technical: If you need to be extremely precise, choose a square the attacker occupies and a square the defender occupies. Draw an imaginary line from every corner of the attacker’s space to every corner of the defender’s space. If even one line is obstructed, the defender has cover. (A line that runs
parallel right along a wall isn’t blocked.) - DMG page 43, DETERMINING COVER FOR MELEE ATTACKS
So with these rules, two creatures who are kitty corner would have cover for melee attacks.
Ha! Those rules aren't more precise than the rules in the PHB, they outright contradict the rules in the PHB, which only ask you to choose one corner of the attacker's square and use that to draw imaginary lines to every corner of the defender's square.
*Sniff* Is that the smell of needed errata I smell on the wind? :D
Good find, ForbiddenMaster!
Most people I know don't use the cover rules from the DMG because they run contrary to some cover rules presented in the PHB. When I consider cover rules for a situation I on;y use PHB ones. This obviously doesn't mean people cannot or should not use the DMG ones, I'm just saying that I do not use them because I find them to be problematic ( not so much the difficulty of understanding them, but because of how different they are in some situations ).
They really aren't that different. The only way in which I can see they are different is that it gives explicit mechanical rules for determining cover from around a corner for melee, or at the very least cover in melee beyond something like a portcullis or a low wall which generally explicitly says that it grants cover.
In the PHB the only indication that attacking around a corner in melee is in the pretext and not in the explicit rules for determining cover even though one may think it "common sense" that if two people in melee are fighting around a corner, the obstruction should provide cover. The DMG remedies that rules "overlook" (for lack of a better word).
I honestly think that when determining the cover rules for the PHB they were really focusing on ranged combat simply because if you compare the entry for determining cover for ranged attacks in the DMG and the entry for determining cover in general in the PHB, the entries are for all intents and purposes exact.
Most people I know don't use the cover rules from the DMG because they run contrary to some cover rules presented in the PHB.
I would suggest that the reason most people you know choose as you have described is not because the rules are contradictory, but rather because the PHB ruling is more favorable to the player.
Reason and common sense indicates that a corner would grant cover. The DMG ruling supports this common sense. The PHB ruling flies in the face of common sense.
I agree that an errata would dispel the confusion by replacing either ruling entry with the other.
I honestly think that when determining the cover rules for the PHB they were really focusing on ranged combat simply because if you compare the entry for determining cover for ranged attacks in the DMG and the entry for determining cover in general in the PHB, the entries are for all intents and purposes exact.
Yeah, I agree. I think your observation is supported by the PHB page 280 diagram, which is illustrating cover for ranged combatants, but not melee.
When I responded to your earlier post, I speculated that errata was in order because of the contradictions between the two rulesets. Having now actually bothered to read the DMG rules :P, I now see that you were fully correct in your "more precise" statement, as that's how the designers clearly view it; an optional, more precise cover ruleset that is separate from the rules presented in the PHB.
The rules in the Player’s Handbook for determining cover are straightforward. A creature that’s around a corner from the attacker, or protected by terrain, has cover. A significant terrain advantage gives superior cover. Most of the time, those rules are the only rules you need.
As the referee, you decide based on common sense whether a creature has cover against an attack. If you want rules that can let you determine cover more precisely, you can use these.
Oh well, can't win 'em all. Still, it makes it even more important to get a "ignore cover for melee" feat.
Oh, rats. So I guess there is cover when attacking around a corner
Wanna go up and clear up your erroneously cleared up misconception now?
Wanna go up and clear up your erroneously cleared up misconception now?
I'll clarify it. The PHB rules (Page 280, which applies equally to range and melee) indicate you do not get cover from a corner; the the DMG contradicts this.
"...choose a corner of the square you occupy... and trace ... lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked, the target has cover...the line isn't blocked if it runs along the edge..."
Pretty clear.
The DMG says "A creature that’s around a corner from the attacker, or protected by terrain, has cover," which is simply not true per the PHB." and
"Getting Technical: If you need to be extremely precise, choose a square the attacker occupies and a square the defender occupies. Draw an imaginary line from every corner of the attacker’s space to every corner of the defender’s space. If even one line is obstructed, the defender has cover. (A line that runs
parallel right along a wall isn’t blocked.) "
Hmmm... time for a CustServ question.
I'll clarify it.[...]
What?
Look, its really pretty simple. According the PHB in text, not rules, and "common sense," two fighters in melee who are fighting around a corner should grant cover to each other. However if you follow the rules in the PHB for determining cover, this does not apply.
The reason this does not apply seems to be that they wanted to make things simple in the PHB, and left the more explicit rules to the DMG in which seemingly the only difference is that you do grant cover to fighters who are fighting around a corner.
And no, there are no feats (TMK) that grant the ability to ignore cover in melee.
...
And no, there are no feats (TMK) that grant the ability to ignore cover in melee.
Alas, that does seem to be the case. It's just a little unbalancing, perhaps, to allow these sorts of feats for ranged weapons and not for melee weapons, but, oh, well, can't win 'em all.
As a demonstration of how reach weapons are getting no love in 4e, right now it's far easier to get sneak attack damage from a ranged weapon than from a reach weapon, and that's just plain odd.
As far as I am concerned if you can spend a feat to ignore cover/concealment (the -2 penalty) or flank with a ranged weapon, there should be feats like that for reach weapons, too. There is no reason why one should not be able to optimize the use of a reach weapon the same way one can do so with a ranged weapon.
right now it's far easier to get sneak attack damage from a ranged weapon than from a reach weapon
No it isn't.
- A melee weapon sneak attack opportunity is something the attacker can create.
- A ranged weapon sneak attack opportunity is something the attacker must wait for.
The former can be created by actions on the part of the attacker. The latter can usually only be created by actions on the part of the attacker's companions. It is not easier to get a ranged sneak attack. It is only safer.
Ranged get more opportunities to ignore cover because it is a bigger issue for them. Enemies grant cover to one another for ranged attacks only.
And for reach weapons.
No it isn't.
- A melee weapon sneak attack opportunity is something the attacker can create.
- A ranged weapon sneak attack opportunity is something the attacker must wait for.
The former can be created by actions on the part of the attacker. The latter can usually only be created by actions on the part of the attacker's companions. It is not easier to get a ranged sneak attack. It is only safer.
Not if using a Reach Wreapon; then you cannot create the sneak attack opportunity [i]at all.[/i]
Reach weapons get no love.
Not if using a Reach Weapon; then you cannot create the sneak attack opportunity [i]at all.[/i]
That is the fault of the rogue choosing to make a reach weapon his primary melee weapon of choice. Reach weapons were not made for sneak attacks. They were made for reaching. No love earned. No love lost. :D
I agree that logically the corner would provide some cover, but suggest simply that most people who play D&D are players and therefore go by the rules presented to them in the PHB. Also, with minor inconsistencies like this I often chalk them up to the abstract combat system that D&D combat is. They are jockeying for position but this isn't fully represented, much like when people move around in combat they don't run 30 feet, then stop for 6 seconds, waiting for everyone else to act in the fight, then run 30 feet, and wait 6 seconds to make sure everyone else gets to do something.
Or, to put it another way, it never occurs to DMG pg 43 that the last bullet on PH pg 280 negates the earlier stuff about attacking around corners, at least as far as melee is concerned. So perhaps we shouldn't read it that way either.
There are a few feats or powers (and maybe items?) to ignore all but total cover and concealment for ranged attacks, but what about melee attacks? Is there anything?
Something like Hunter's Aim, but for melee weapons.
Thanks for your help!
Going back to the OP.
The only thing I could find for a melee attack was a ranger level 7 encounter power, Hawk's Talon.
The attack line states, "Ignore any penalties from cover or concealment (but not superior cover or total concealment)."
This might've been RAI for the ranged part of the attack, but it doesn't say so and the attack can be either melee or ranged according to the power.
Going back to the OP.
The only thing I could find for a melee attack was a ranger level 7 encounter power, Hawk's Talon.
The attack line states, "Ignore any penalties from cover or concealment (but not superior cover or total concealment)."
This might've been RAI for the ranged part of the attack, but it doesn't say so and the attack can be either melee or ranged according to the power.
Not quite what I was looking for, but at least there is a precedent for a power that ignores cover/concealment for a melee weapon.
I am going to have to live without having this one. Perhaps something will appear in Martial Power 2.