The Cover rules on the SRD (page 195 of the Core Rulebook) state that while making attacks at reach the ranged combat rules for cover apply.
Normally, if you are trying to attack with a ranged weapon, and something is between you and your target, your target gains Soft Cover.
Does that mean that if you have a spear and are standing behind your sword-and-board buddy, that you take a -4 to hit the guy in front of your pal? (or a -8, if Soft Cover and Firing Into Melee penalties stack)
What if your buddy is a halfling (and you're a human)?
How does this work for something with Natural Reach, like Hill Giant?
Do you need Precise Shot to build a good polearm fighter now?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The cover would apply, the feat wouldn't be needed IIRC, it is still melee combat which is different than ranged combat.
|
On the off-chance that you found the prior answer confusing:
"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."
A melee attack with a reach weapon is still a melee attack and uses all the normal melee attack rules, EXCEPT that you "use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" when determining if the target has cover. So, it's not actually a ranged attack and doesn't use the ranged attack modifiers (like -4 for shooting into melee without precise shot).
So, in your example, you would take a -4 penalty for soft cover when using a spear to attack through an ally.
A halfling ally between you and the target would be a "Low Obstacle" no higher than half your height. Actually, unless you're really tall, alot of halfings are a little more than half your height, but even so, if your ally happens to be less than half your height, then the target gets cover if it's within 30' of the low obstacle. Since the target in this case is just on the other side, it gets cover.
Another consideration is attacks of opportunity. If you design your character to get AOO's, you can't take them against your hypothetical target because it has cover against you.
Note that I believe this was a change from 3.5, which if I recall correctly handled this differently (but its been so long I could be wrong). Also, to my knowledge, there is no Pathfinder official feat that negates this cover, though someone once mentioned that there is a 3rd party product that has a feat allowing you to ignore the soft cover provided by allies when using a reach weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a minor nitpick. While in most respects the result will be the same: you do not apply a penalty of -4 to hit, but your target which has soft cover from your ally occupying the square between you and your target gains +4 AC.
For large(r) creatures - confer to the PRD:
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.
If a hill giant attacks an opponent which is not adjacent to it (with any weapon), the same rules for reach attacks apply as quoted/stated/elaborated on in the above posts.
Ruyan.
Do you need Precise Shot to build a good polearm fighter now?
Precise Shot wouldn't help. It just removes the standard -4 attack penalty for shooting into melee. It won't change the +4 AC bonus granted by soft cover.
I have a question.
In the diagram labeled "Cover" (p. 194), does the cleric have cover against the oger's reach attack? In other words, is a line of effect that passes along a wall considered to be passing through it?
I have a question.
In the diagram labeled "Cover" (p. 194), does the cleric have cover against the oger's reach attack? In other words, is a line of effect that passes along a wall considered to be passing through it?
I don't believe it counts. The cleric would not have cover versus the ogre.
In the diagram labeled "Cover" (p. 194), does the cleric have cover against the oger's reach attack? In other words, is a line of effect that passes along a wall considered to be passing through it?
I don't think so.
SKR says here "Running a line along the edge of a square isn't passing through that square" and if that is taken to work for cover squares as well, then it would not be passing through the wall, just running alongside it. (The original quote was in relation to spells with "line" areas.)
You get some really strange cases, otherwise.
Bad ASCII incoming:
[Orc1]
[Orc2] ..... [Archer]
If running along the edge grants cover, then Orc1 has cover against Archer, since archer needs to draw a line to Orc1's back bottom corner, which runs along Orc2's border.
Do you need Precise Shot to build a good polearm fighter now?Precise Shot wouldn't help. It just removes the standard -4 attack penalty for shooting into melee. It won't change the +4 AC bonus granted by soft cover.
Just to be clear. You're not taking the -4 penalty for shooting into melee because you're making a melee attack with a reach weapon, so Precise Shot is not applicable. This is understandably confusing because reach weapons determine cover as a ranged weapon.
To be additionally clear, reach weapons are ranged melee weapons, so understandably they would use ranged rules to determine cover for attacks made at range and melee rules to determine cover for attacks made into adjacent squares. (Damn I love/hate this game.)
I see a bit of an equivocation here that could be the source of the confusion. On the one hand ranged weapons equal weapons that can make attacks at range (i.e. longspears, whips and shortbows), yet, on the other hand ranged weapons equal weapons found on the equipment list under the heading "ranged weapons" (i.e. shortbows, slings and bolas.
Could this be cleared up by referring to ranged weapons (i.e. shortbows, slings, and bolas) as projectile weapons instead? Because, when you refer to a ranged weapon you could be referring to a anything from a ranged melee weapon like a glaive to a ranged ranged weapon like a shuriken.
On another note, the -4 penalty for firing into melee is not a cover bonus; that's why it "stacks" with the +4 AC bonus received from soft cover. They're not really stacking because one is a penalty to the attacker and the other is a bonus to the defender.
To be additionally clear, reach weapons are ranged melee weapons
I think adding "ranged" to any type of melee weapon will only confuse more people. Better to keep reach weapons as Reach Weapons.
Could this be cleared up by referring to ranged weapons (i.e. shortbows, slings, and bolas) as projectile weapons instead?
Shortbows and slings are Projectile Weapons.
Bolas aren't given a category for some reason, but it's reasonable to assume they are Thrown Weapons along with daggers, javelins, nets, etc.
Because, when you refer to a ranged weapon you could be referring to a anything from a ranged melee weapon like a glaive to a ranged ranged weapon like a shuriken.
Melee and Ranged Weapons: "Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks, though some of them can be thrown as well. Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."
Melee weapon: Longsword
Melee weapon, thrown weapon: Dagger
Ranged weapon, thrown weapon: Dart
Ranged weapon: Longbow
The first two are effective in melee, the last two aren't.
Some people read (thrown weapons) and (projectile weapons that are not effective in melee) as two separate entities, rather than (thrown weapons) or (projectile weapons) both of which are not effective in melee. This interpretation means a dagger is a ranged weapon when thrown, which allows it to work with Point-Blank Shot.
At any rate, referring to a glaive as a ranged weapon doesn't really make any sense, and breaks all sorts of things. (like using Deflect Arrows on a melee attack from a glaive)
On another note, the -4 penalty for firing into melee is not a cover bonus; that's why it "stacks" with the +4 AC bonus received from soft cover. They're not really stacking because one is a penalty to the attacker and the other is a bonus to the defender.
Yes, shooting into melee has nothing to do with cover. Either or both can apply.
To be additionally clear, reach weapons are ranged melee weaponsI think adding "ranged" to any type of melee weapon will only confuse more people. Better to keep reach weapons as Reach Weapons.
Thanks Grick,I agree. In hindsight I maybe should have italicized "ranged" rather than "melee" because reach weapons are in a fence straddling position wherein they make melee attacks at a "range" of ten or more feet, and therefore use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. By "range" I mean making melee attacks against a target not adjacent to you.
Perhaps in future iterations of the rules designers will elaborate upon this, because as the original poster indicated there is much confusion on reach weapons being melee weapons that determine cover as ranged weapons. Most tables I've played at just treat reach weapons as melee weapons and ignore ranged cover, which has been a source of frustration for me for a long time.
:)
:)
Too be fair, I've seen a decent number of players that do this as well. It's just a rule that many people are unaware of, and one that I think was designed to balance the otherwise considerable advantage melee reach (and of course ranged) has in combat.
To be additionally clear, reach weapons are ranged melee weapons, so understandably they would use ranged rules to determine cover for attacks made at range and melee rules to determine cover for attacks made into adjacent squares. (Damn I love/hate this game.)
That makes perfect sense to me, but I've been having a hard time figuring out the example on page 194 of the core rulebook. In it, Merisiel and an ogre are adjacent to each diagonally, around a corner. The text says "The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, Merisiel does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon)." This implies that the ogre *always* calculates cover as if it were using a ranged weapon, even when the target is adjacent.
What am I missing? Thanks in advance.
To really be fair, the rule for cover is that the target gets an AC bonus - that's the GM's job (when the target is the monster), not the players'.:)Too be fair, I've seen a decent number of players that do this as well.
True, I didn't say that as clearly as I could have. I was more referring to threads I see on the boards with build advice/combat scenarios (instead of actual games) that fail to take soft cover into account.
I don't disagree. I've had players complain about me using soft cover rules versus even ranged attacks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be additionally clear, reach weapons are ranged melee weapons, so understandably they would use ranged rules to determine cover for attacks made at range and melee rules to determine cover for attacks made into adjacent squares. (Damn I love/hate this game.)That makes perfect sense to me, but I've been having a hard time figuring out the example on page 194 of the core rulebook. In it, Merisiel and an ogre are adjacent to each diagonally, around a corner. The text says "The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, Merisiel does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon)." This implies that the ogre *always* calculates cover as if it were using a ranged weapon, even when the target is adjacent.
What am I missing? Thanks in advance.
Confusion is understandable.
Cover for ranged attacks and cover for melee attacks use different rules.
Ranged Cover Rule: To determine cover from a ranged attack the attacker picks one corner of their square and draws lines of effect from that corner to all corners of the defender's square. The attacker necessarily picks the corner with the most advantageous lines of effect to the defender. If any of these lines pass through something that gives cover, then the defender has cover.
Melee Cover Rule:To determine cover from a melee attack lines of effect are drawn from every corner of the attacker's square to all corners of the defender's square. If any of these lines pass through something that gives cover, then the defender has cover.
The rogue in the page 194 diagram is not attacking with a reach weapon, nor is she attacking with a ranged weapon so she determines cover using the Melee Cover Rule.
The ogre is attacking with a reach weapon (his arm) so he uses the Ranged Cover Rule.
Now another rule comes into play because the ogre is a large creature, and large creatures can pick any square he occupies and draw lines of effect from that square's corners. (It would be incorrect to draw lines of effect from different corners in different squares within the area the ogre occupies.)
The ogre necessarily picks the most advantageous corner of the most advantageous square from which to draw lines of effect in order to determine cover because he has reach and therefore uses the Ranged Cover Rule.
Now, if you look at the diagram you will see that the ogre's most advantageous corner of his most advantageous square is the top right corner of his top left square.
(Damn this game!)
@Lakesidefantasy: Thank you for taking the time to explain all that. I like your explanation better than the rulebook's.
I'm still confused by one thing, though. In your earlier post, you said that reach *weapons* (emphasis added) use melee rules for determining cover for opponents that are adjacent. Why does this not apply to the ogre? Is it because he's using a natural weapon?
(I have to confess that I may just toss the cover rules entirely until I have more experience. I'm getting enough headaches from trying to remember the rules for attacks of opportunity without play sessions grinding to a halt.)
I'm still confused by one thing, though. In your earlier post, you said that reach *weapons* (emphasis added) use melee rules for determining cover for opponents that are adjacent. Why does this not apply to the ogre? Is it because he's using a natural weapon?
That is a very good question.
I will admit that normally you can't use a reach weapon to make melee attacks into an adjacent square, but there are certain situations when you can (see whips). Also, creatures with natural reach can make melee attacks into adjacent squares, such as large (tall) creatures like the ogre with 10 ft. reach.
The answer is because it is specifically in the Cover Rules under Big Creatures and Cover.
From the rule it appears that any creature that occupies a space more than 5 ft. square always determines cover using the the Ranged Cover Rule.
This is interesting because unlike large (tall) creatures with 10 ft. reach, large (long) creatures have a reach of 5 ft. such as a gorgon with a gore attack or a horse with a hoof attack.
This may possibly be a design oversight.
At least now I know I'm reading the rules correctly, even if they make my brain hurt. :-)
From the standpoint of realism, I can understand how the ogre would have more flexibility in its attack than somebody with a longspear, so I suppose it makes sense that the ogre would have less restrictive rules for determining cover bonuses than a character with a weapon. (After all, elbows have to be good for something.)
I never even considered your point about the gorgon or horse, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least now I know I'm reading the rules correctly, even if they make my brain hurt. :-)
From the standpoint of realism, I can understand how the ogre would have more flexibility in its attack than somebody with a longspear, so I suppose it makes sense that the ogre would have less restrictive rules for determining cover bonuses than a character with a weapon. (After all, elbows have to be good for something.
Hold on a second, always remember that reach weapons use the Ranged Cover Rule when making melee attacks against a target that is not adjacent to them, so the ogre and the longspear wielder are using the same Ranged Cover Rule.
I definitely feel a house-rule coming on. The way the reach rules interact with the cover rules is needlessly complex, unrealistic and kind of silly.
D&D/PF Unrealistic? WOW, who would have ever figured that?! LOL
Honestly, I dont mind the reach rules as regarding cover rules. They make sense to me.
You have an Ogre standing at the corner of a wall. His right side goes through the wall when trying to smack the PC. His left can draw a clean line from his left hand through to the PC without intersecting the wall. Great!
GM: He grabs the wall with his right hand, swings his left hand around the wall and smacks you with it!
PC: But..but! I had cover.
GM: From his right hand yes, from his left...not so much.
PC: Awww!
Edit: Adding a graphic.
XXOOXX
XXRLXX
HPHHHH
XXXXXX
X = walls
H = open Hallway
O = Ogre
R = Right side of Ogre (has cover relative to the PC)
L = Left side of ogre (there is no cover relative to the PC)
- Gauss
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ogre is attacking with a reach weapon (his arm) so he uses the Ranged Cover Rule.
Wait wait wait...
The melee attack cover mechanic doesn't change based on the type of weapon, only on the positioning.
"When making a melee attack against an adjacent target... (melee rules)"
"When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you... (ranged rules)"
Now, by itself, this would mean Rogue DOES have cover from Ogre, since rogue is adjacent to ogre, regardless of what kind of weapon ogre is using.
However, since Ogre is large: "Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks."
Does this mean that the chosen square determines if the attacker is adjacent or not, rather than the entire creature? That's the only way Rogue doesn't have cover. She's adjacent to ogre, but not adjacent to the square ogre has chosen to determine if Rogue has cover...
This means if you replace Ogre with Horse, nothing changes. The horse chooses the same (top left) square to determine cover. That square is not adjacent to Rogue, so Horse uses the ranged cover rules. Horse draws lines, none cross, so Rogue does not have cover. Horse can still Hoof Rogue because Horse is adjacent to Rogue, even if the cover-square isn't.
Wacky!
It's official, this rule gives me a headache.
Most of the time, winging it works just as well :)