If I'm using a Reach weapon and adjacent to a Large creature, does the adjacent square of the creature provide cover against an attack against a square of the creature further away, reachable with a Reach weapon?
This issue came up recently in our game and there was some debate about it so I'd like to get some other people's opinions.
Example:
X12
.34
X = Me
1234 = Squares occupied by a single size Large creature
. = placeholder for empty square
If I'm using a longspear and standing in square X, I can attack square 2 with reach. While doing so, does square 1 provide cover against my attack?
Please reference specific sources and page numbers for rules in support of your opinion.
To begin with, you can't attack squares with a weapon, you are attacking the creature.
"With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)." [Combat section of the Core Rulebook]
The Large creature would be within 5ft of you, so you could not attack it.
To begin with, you can't attack squares with a weapon, you are attacking the creature.
You can, refer to rules on total concealment. But the rest of your statement is accurate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yo mama's so fat, she grants herself cover?
So you can attack, say an Imp, on a Troll's shoulder with a reach weapon, but not the shoulder itself? That's bizarre.
What about ranged attacks? The shooting into melee section makes reference to aiming at different "parts" of a large target.
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
Does a large creature provide cover for itself?
I expect this is more of a built in downside to reach weapons ruling than it is a realism ruling.
If a reach weapon could attack both 5' and 10' out, why would I ever take a non-reach weapon?
|
I expect this is more of a built in downside to reach weapons ruling than it is a realism ruling.
If a reach weapon could attack both 5' and 10' out, why would I ever take a non-reach weapon?
This example specifically involves a large creature which is occupying squares both in and out of the weapon's attackable area.
Even if it were allowed, which it is not, it would not set precedent for attacking medium sized adjacent creatures with a reach weapon, so a non-reach weapon would still have utility.
|
So you can attack, say an Imp, on a Troll's shoulder with a reach weapon, but not the shoulder itself? That's bizarre.
The rules don't cover a character on another character other than the mounted combat rules. The mounted combat section say that the rider occupies all of the squares of the mount as a matter of simplicity. That is the closest match from a rules perspective. If using this, the imp would occupy all of the troll's squares and would be targeted the same way as the troll, or the same way as a rider on a horse.