|
Am I right to assume that is you poke at an enemy 10 feet away with your longspear (or any other reach weapon), and an ally is standing in the space between you and your enemy, you get both -4 to hit from stabbing into melee, and a -4 to hit from the cover your friend provides?
example:
- - - - -
- E F M -
- - - - -
or
- - - M -
- - F - -
- E - - -
(E=enemy, F=Friend, M=Me)
If this is the case, are there any feats that provide the same benefits for reach weapons as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot provides for ranged attacks?
Stabbing into melee? Aside from potential cover penalties, I don't think there's any penalty for joining a melee with a melee weapon.
If you can take a 5' step to the South in your first example and to the west in your second example, the cover would become only partial cover, so the AC bonus would be only +2 (if your GM approves it).
I think there is actually no cover in second example if you take step to the west.
The rules for cover say that if you are using a melee weapon and your enemy is not adjacent to you, you use the cover rules for ranged attacks.
"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."
Creatures do provide soft cover for ranged attacks (and by the former rule, alse for melee attacks when the enemy is not adjacent)
"Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC."
Rules for ranged attacks say that you take a -4 if your enemy is engaged in melee; it does not talk about reach weapons.
"Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll."
So in both the OP's examples, the penalty is just -4.
If this is the case, are there any feats that provide the same benefits for reach weapons as Precise Shot and Improved Precise Shot provides for ranged attacks?
There's an Eberron feat called "Precise Swing" that allows you to ignore cover (but not total cover) for melee attacks.
By the way, the text in the diagram in page 194 doesn't match the written rules. The text:
"#2. [..] The ogre has melee cover from her [Merisiel], 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)."
That's an error, as the the rule doesn't say that you use the ranged rules for cover if you have reach, but only if your enemy is not adjacent to you. So, Merisiek (#2) would have cover; and Kyra (#3) wouldn't.
Actually they do. Allies provide cover for opponents for ranged attacks, it is called soft cover, see page 196 of the Core Rulebook. Since reach weapons use the cover rules of ranged weapons to determine cover, soft cover applies.
Well there you go, I never noticed that before I mean soft cover. Means improved precise shot just became even more important for ranged characters shooting into melee to avoid the cover.
That certaintly means that the fighter up front, someone with reach weapon behind them hitting the same target combo has been slightly nerfed as the target gets a +4 to AC, hence the orignal question, which as the others said you don't have any penalty for meleeing into combat, just the target AC goes up.
Big creatures get around it slightly by allowing it to draw line from any square that it posses, and the same back. So as long as your not directly
By the way, the text in the diagram in page 194 doesn't match the written rules. The text:
"#2. [..] The ogre has melee cover from her [Merisiel], 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)."
That's an error, as the the rule doesn't say that you use the ranged rules for cover if you have reach, but only if your enemy is not adjacent to you. So, Merisiek (#2) would have cover; and Kyra (#3) wouldn't.
But a large creature can choose any square it occupies for determination if the target has cover. In the above example, he could choose the upper left square, which would require reach to hit the target, thereby using the ranged rules.
At least that's how I'm looking at it.
But a large creature can choose any square it occupies for determination if the target has cover. In the above example, he could choose the upper left square, which would require reach to hit the target, thereby using the ranged rules.
At least that's how I'm looking at it.
True, he could choose the square.
I forgot because we don't use that rule as it doesn't make sense for me. It also works the oter way: Merisiel could chose the square she attacks. If she wields a long spear she could attack the farther square, though she is adjacent to the ogre? If Merisiel would be Large none of the combatants would have cover? Kyra wouldn't have cover from the ogre attacks but the ogre has cover from hers (though both would be "ranged")?It is more difficult for Seoni to hit a Large ogre (partial cover) than to hit a medium enemy in the square adjacent to MErisiel.?
|
|
Just to sum up, noone has seen a feet for PFRPG that allows you to ignore cover with reach weapons, like Improved Precise Shot does it for ranged weapons?
Dunno why I asked about the -4 for stabbing into melee, really. I knew the answer, and never played with the -4. So much for asking questions when you're tired.
Firing into melee exists
Stabbing into Melee does not Exist.
That sounds philosophical, like "Friendly fire isn't."
Just to sum up, noone has seen a feet for PFRPG that allows you to ignore cover with reach weapons, like Improved Precise Shot does it for ranged weapons?
I've only seen the 3.5 feat from the Eberron Campaign Setting.
Great now we have soft cover, except when your frontline is dwarves and the pikemen are humans (now we have to give the opponents soft cover due to the short dwarves). How would you rule on this??
I'd read two paragraphs down from the soft cover heading in the rule book... and assess whether I should be applying partial cover instead... on a case by case basis.