|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A friend of mine who plays in a different group recently had a table ruling that he couldn't use his whip in a 5' hallway because he would have needed to "attack through a square occupied by a friendly party member". I told him that reach weapons could be used to attack through a friendly square uninhibited, to which he said that unless I could find the exact rule in the guide, his GM wouldn't buy it.
Now I've looked for the specific rule and can't find it. Where exactly does it state that you can attack through friendly squares with a reach weapon, or am I just outright wrong?
Or this link. It's page 195 in the core book.
|
Page 195, second paragraph under "Cover":
"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."
|
|
Page 195, second paragraph under "Cover":
"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."
Thanks guys. That's exactly what he was looking for.
Can/do creatures grant cover? If so when?
|
|
One last follow-up question then (because I know he's going to ask it, and I want to make sure I'm right).
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)
Okay, in this case imagine three squares in a row (essentially creating a 15'x5' space). I am standing in the far right square, my opponent is in the far left square, my buddy is in the middle square. I draw a line from any corner of my square (the top left corner of my square) to a corner of my opponent's square (the top right corner of his square). Does this line "pass through" the middle person's square since it runs along its top edge and never actually "crosses" it?
|
|
Okay, in this case imagine three squares in a row (essentially creating a 15'x5' space). I am standing in the far right square, my opponent is in the far left square, my buddy is in the middle square. I draw a line from any corner of my square (the top left corner of my square) to a corner of my opponent's square (the top right corner of his square). Does this line "pass through" the middle person's square since it runs along its top edge and never actually "crosses" it?
Nevermind, I sort-of get it now. This is going to be a pain in the behind to relay to this other person. This rule is really convoluted.
|
Nevermind, I sort-of get it now. This is going to be a pain in the behind to relay to this other person. This rule is really convoluted.
Try thinking about it this way: You choose your most favorable corner. You must see all four of his corners, since one of them is HIS most favorable corner. If you can't see all of his corners clearly...cover.
Bottom line: the guy between you and your target is soft cover, granting the target a +4 cover bonus to AC against your reach attack.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Bottom line: the guy between you and your target is soft cover, granting the target a +4 cover bonus to AC against your reach attack.
Except he isn't if you're trying to do a trip or other combat maneuver. It's things like this that make some of the people I play with go bat-nuts-insane and why they continually ask questions of me that I consider "mundane" but require cross-referencing half a dozen rules to figure out in specific rule callings. There's a pretty significant thread from a year ago where they were asking for developer confirmation on this, but while it may have been intended that cover adds to CMD, the rules say otherwise and it only provides an AC bonus.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I´m pretty sure that the AC bonus for cover counts as a ´circumstance´ bonus, which applies to CMD.
Note that pretty much nothing is specifically CALLED OUT as ´circumstance´ bonus...
You have to make the leap that an untyped bonus due to circumstances is a ´circumstance´ bonus.
The rules WOULD be alot clearer if all circumstance bonuses were called out as such.
(but I believe some bonuses only exist on tables, without their own prose descriptions)
I have no idea why they didn´t just save themselves the trouble,
and say any bonus that applies to Touch AC applies to CMD.
(e.g. NON-circumstantial untyped bonuses which STILL don´t apply after the Luck Bonus Errata... though it´s great they finally fixed that!)
Of course, instead of the writing approach we see in the Core Rules (big word count to re-invent the wheel from scratch), CMD/CMB could have simply been described as modifiers/derivates of Touch AC/melee attacks, preventing all this confusion, for the same mechanical effect. What´s wierd is that exact approach was explored during the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Not sure if I'm reading this right, but it looks like the RAW allows soft cover to apply to combat maneuvers as well as ordinary attacks:
Pg. 199 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook:
"A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature’s AC also apply to its CMD."
Pg. 196:
"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 Stealth check."
So someone attacking with a reach weapon thru a square occupied by a friendly is at an additional -4 to hit whether it's an ordinary attack or a combat maneuver.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Page 195, second paragraph under "Cover":
"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."
This would seem to imply that a character with Improved Precise Shot could potentially ignore this form of soft cover when using a reach weapon. Probably not though, since the cover is determined as if a ranged attack, but the attack itself is still considered melee and IPS specifically mentions ranged attacks.
Now I wish there was a feat for the reach weapon specialist that would ignore this form of soft cover.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This would seem to imply that a character with Improved Precise Shot could potentially ignore this form of soft cover when using a reach weapon. Probably not though, since the cover is determined as if a ranged attack, but the attack itself is still considered melee and IPS specifically mentions ranged attacks.
Now I wish there was a feat for the reach weapon specialist that would ignore this form of soft cover.
Unfortunately, precise shot specifically states "when using a ranged weapon." It's pretty easy to argue that the reach weapon section says "use ranged weapon rules for determining cover", not "treat the reach weapon as a ranged weapon."
I would like to see the feat you're speaking of. One that specifically allowed piercing weapons to be used in such a manner would be thematically consistent with precise shot too.