| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Question: If you have reach can you use the non-adjacent cover rule against an adjacent target?
As per the cover rules on CRB p195 the answer seems to be an obvious...NO! However, the CRB also provides an example that is in fact a yes. On CRB p194 the second example is of an Ogre who is adjacent to the target (Merisiel) but is using non-adjacent (reach) cover rules.
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 any corner of 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.
Ranged cover rule: First paragraph.
Melee adjacent cover rule: Second paragraph sentence one.Melee non-adjacent cover rule: Second paragraph sentence two.
#2: Merisiel is adjacent to the ogre, but lines from the corners of her square to the corners of the ogre’s square cross through a wall. 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).
In this example Merisiel and the Ogre are adjacent. However, the Ogre (who has reach) is using the Melee non-adjacent cover rule instead of the Melee adjacent cover rule.
- Gauss
FAQ'd for moral support, even though we disagree on this issue. Besides, I'm curious whether there was something left out of the text by mistake.
Thanks for the FAQ. :)
Out of curiosity, do you disagree that the CRB p194 Ogre is using the non-adjacent cover rule while adjacent?
- Gauss
I agree that it is doing that, and I agree that it doesn't mesh with the cover text, because the cover text didn't cover natural reach. Instead, the example seems to provide "stealth clarification" for natural reach--in an less-than-clear fashion.
I'm more interested in why melee cover and ranged cover use different rules, and why natural reach would make one use the ranged rules even when adjacent to the enemy. I doubt it has anything to do with the ogre attacking from his butt.
Ahhhh, ok.
Well, I do not think this is a natural reach issue. After all, there are ways to threaten both adjacent and non-adjacent squares (Enlarge, lunge*, Dragoon archetype+Lance, etc...)
*while attacking only
As for melee cover vs ranged cover rules being different, I do not think that will be answered since that is a design philosophy question.
What I am interested in is can you choose to use the non-adjacent cover rules while adjacent (as the example on CRB p194 did).
- Gauss
Well, I do not think this is a natural reach issue. After all, there are ways to threaten both adjacent and non-adjacent squares (Enlarge, lunge*, Dragoon archetype+Lance, etc...)
*while attacking only
Agreed. I don't think it's natural reach but rather just reach. I think the adjacent/non-adjacent thing is just to clarify how reach weapons work.
its a natural reach and size issue
here is why.
CRB-197
"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."
it's using ranged cover rules because the ogre is simply choosing its top left corner/top left square to determine cover with Merisiel. From that square it makes the attack 10 feet away so its attacking with reach even though he's adjacent. The ogre can do this because natural reach states you can still attack adjacent foes. A reach weapon explicitly forbids attacking adjacent foes, so even with a reach weapon you couldn't attack back.
big slow monsters have to have some perks, this ogre is already way outnumbered.
RunebladeX, damn, how did I miss that? Thanks, goes to show I miss stuff too. :)
- Gauss
it's ok i thought that was always an error for the past couple years. i seen you bring it up so i revisited it again and just made sense of it myself. If Merisiel became enlarged she still wouldn't be able to attack back with a spear as she's adjacent, but she could with a non reach weapon- making use of her enlarged natural reach. With reach weapons 5' steps are your best friend. if you could attack adjacent foes with reach weapons there would be no disadvantage to using them and everyone would be running around with them ;)
Actually, I think what you quoted does at least imply you can use a reach weapon since you can pick the square it occupies to target. However, that debate is in another thread.
- Gauss