|
Yes.
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.
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).
(Emphasis mine).
Yes.
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.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).(Emphasis mine).
Reach attack?
(Re-emphasis mine)
Does the target on the other side of a character get a bonus to AC like from cover from a reach attack?
only when a reach weapon is used.
|
Yes.
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.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).(Emphasis mine).Reach attack?
(Re-emphasis mine)
Point being?
Actually, no - on any attack against a non-adjacent foe.Does the target on the other side of a character get a bonus to AC like from cover from a reach attack?only when a reach weapon is used.
I was saying that if you use a reach weapon and someone is in between you and the person you are attacking you have to take the soft cover penalty to attack.
What were you saying?
I think target size is covered in the Cover rules already.
Is there any kind of attack that would let you attack non-adjacent enemies that is neither reach nor ranged?
You could be enlarged. That way your normal reach allows you to hit them without them being adjacent to you and since it is not a reach weapon there is no cover penalty.
|
|
You could be enlarged. That way your normal reach allows you to hit them without them being adjacent to you and since it is not a reach weapon there is no cover penalty.I think target size is covered in the Cover rules already.
Is there any kind of attack that would let you attack non-adjacent enemies that is neither reach nor ranged?
No, that is still a reach attack, not an adjacent attack, so cover would apply, as appropriate for target size.
"Use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks" => yes, you use the rule that says "ranged attack".
Does this mean that Improved Precise Shot removes this penalty even for melee attacks made from reach?
(On the one hand, the feat specifically says it's for Ranged Attacks... But on the other hand, so do all the rules surrounding Cover bonuses.)
No, that is still a reach attack, not an adjacent attack, so cover would apply, as appropriate for target size.You could be enlarged. That way your normal reach allows you to hit them without them being adjacent to you and since it is not a reach weapon there is no cover penalty.I think target size is covered in the Cover rules already.
Is there any kind of attack that would let you attack non-adjacent enemies that is neither reach nor ranged?
No it would not apply. Attacking with a reach weapon is NOT the same as having long limbs. As an example a giant attacking you 10 feet away suffers no penalty. If he uses a reach weapon to attack you from 20 feet away then he would. How long you can reach is a part of every creature even if they can only reach 5 feet. Specifically using a "reach weapon" which is the term used in the book is a game term covered in the equipment section.
|
|
No it would not apply. Attacking with a reach weapon is NOT the same as having long limbs. ... Specifically using a "reach weapon" which is the term used in the book is a game term covered in the equipment section.
No, that is still a reach attack, not an adjacent attack, so cover would apply, as appropriate for target size.
That is incorrect.
Cover
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.
Reach Weapon is used as an example of not being adjacent, not as the only means of such.
Intervening cover provided by a player or npc can be provided whether you have natural reach or weapon based reach, so long as the creature is between the attacker and it's target.
No it would not apply. Attacking with a reach weapon is NOT the same as having long limbs. ... Specifically using a "reach weapon" which is the term used in the book is a game term covered in the equipment section.
No, that is still a reach attack, not an adjacent attack, so cover would apply, as appropriate for target size.That is incorrect.
Cover
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.
Reach Weapon is used as an example of not being adjacent, not as the only means of such.
Intervening cover provided by a player or npc can be provided whether you have natural reach or weapon based reach, so long as the creature is between the attacker and it's target.
This may sound like a question with an obvious answer, but I don't remember ever seeing it...
How is 'adjacent' defined by the rules? Is adjacent the same for larger/smaller creatures?
@Remy Balster:
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).
I don't see any alternate definition relating to creature size.
|
|
@Remy Balster:
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).I don't see any alternate definition relating to creature size.
There is not, adjacent is adjacent, "next to" in the common definition and in game mechanics.
Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across, so four can fit into a single square. 25 Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can't flank an enemy.
Large, Huge, Gargantuan, and Colossal Creatures: Very large creatures take up more than 1 square.
Creatures that take up more than 1 square typically have a natural reach of 10 feet or more, meaning that they can reach targets even if they aren't in adjacent squares.
Unlike when someone uses a reach weapon, a creature with greater than normal natural reach (more than 5 feet) still threatens squares adjacent to it. A creature with greater than normal natural reach usually gets an attack of opportunity against you if you approach it, because you must enter and move within the range of its reach before you can attack it. This attack of opportunity is not provoked if you take a 5-foot step.
Large or larger creatures using reach weapons can strike up to double their natural reach but can't strike at their natural reach or less.
All the descriptions of different sizes in combat still consider a target to be adjacent by the common definition, essentially adjoining squares on a battle map.
Is there any feat that removes the cover penalty when using a reach weapon from behind an ally?
Anyone have an answer to this? I can't remember (or quickly find) anything that's Paizo-created that does this.
Depending on interpretation, I can see an argument for Improved Precise Shot doing this, but that seems like a fairly generous translation of the feat to include reach melee weapons.
EDITED: for word choice
I still don't think it is clear that the rule "Reach weapons use the rules for ranged weapon for cover" applies to the separate Soft Cover rules. If there was a feat to eliminate or reduce the cover penalty, it would be clearer.
Non-adjacent attacks definitely use the ranged rules for selecting corners and drawing lines and such to determine cover, but I'm not just sure that they're intended to use soft cover rules as well (which are listed as for ranged attacks later on).
I still don't think it is clear that the rule "Reach weapons use the rules for ranged weapon for cover" applies to the separate Soft Cover rules.
I dunno, I think it's pretty clear.
The Soft Cover rules read: "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."
The AC bonus is normal and explicitly called out as using the normal cover rules, which we've agreed do apply. The only difference between "soft cover" and the normal cover rules is that there are things that soft cover won't grant such as the ability to Stealth away.
I agree with Orfamay and Fomsie... the rules for reach, allies/enemies between an attacker and a target, and cover seem pretty well spelled-out and straight-forward.
I also don't believe "adjacent" needs any more clarification. The lack of an "in-game" definition makes me believe that it's regular, practical definition is appropriate. (generally = "next to" or "adjoining")
I don't like the fact that there's no way of ignoring it while ranged combat has a feat, though. That frustrates me.
|
If you have Improved precise shot, you can ignore the cover, but i don't see many non-archery focused builds being able to qualify for it. Hmmm... Polearm Ranger using Archery Style could pick it up Precise Shot and Improved Precise shot for free. Probably best to MC to something else after 6th level though as those are the only two feats in the archery tree that are good for reach weapons.
The AC bonus is normal and explicitly called out as using the normal cover rules, which we've agreed to apply. The only difference between "soft cover" and the normal cover rules is that there are things that soft cover won't grant such as the ability to Stealth away.
You're stacking this up as a discussion. I'm talking about how the rules are actually laid out.
First, it says "Here's how you calculate ranged cover - use this corner to these corners, etc.". Then it says, "And here is how you calculate melee cover. Oh! But if you're not adjacent, use those ranged cover rules." Later on, it says "Oh yes, and you can also get cover from other creatures, but only on ranged attacks."
use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
I don't think this is clear as meaning "non-adjacent attacks are considered ranged for all purposes of cover". It is specifically in the sections talking about lines from here to here.
That said, this is at the beginning of the Cover section - so it certainly could be a general rule and mean exactly that. I'm just not convinced of that.
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.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
Cover and Reflex Saves: Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus.
Cover and Stealth Checks: You can use cover to make a Stealth check. Without cover, you usually need concealment (see below) to make a Stealth check.
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.
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.
Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
That said, this is at the beginning of the Cover section - so it certainly could be a general rule and mean exactly that. I'm just not convinced of that.
Well, what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that the words "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" mean "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"?
If the words don't mean what they literally mean, what do they mean?
|
|
Improved Precise Shot would have no effect on reach weapons;
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks
The rule on non adjacent melee attacks using the rules for ranged attacks to determine cover, does not make them ranged attacks. By the same token, there is no -4 penalty for attacking someone in melee with a reach weapon, because it is still a melee attack, not ranged.
|
|
That said, this is at the beginning of the Cover section - so it certainly could be a general rule and mean exactly that. I'm just not convinced of that.
Well, what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that the words "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" mean "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"?
If the words don't mean what they literally mean, what do they mean?
This.
This is one of those rules that is spelled out with no ambiguous speech. Not sure what you are even thinking as being in doubt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
If you care about my perspective (right or wrong), read the Full Cover rules, in order. If you want to trade quips, I'm done.
My perspective is that the bolded words above, "use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks", means this (and only this):
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).
|
|
Improved Precise Shot would have no effect on reach weapons;
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacksThe rule on non adjacent melee attacks using the rules for ranged attacks to determine cover, does not make them ranged attacks. By the same token, there is no -4 penalty for attacking someone in melee with a reach weapon, because it is still a melee attack, not ranged.
I missed the word ranged there, too bad. It would be a reasonable house rule to let it apply to reach weapons, but that's no good for RAW or PFS.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted ...
use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks...
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks
If we're going to be expansive about what that second line means, we should be consistent. Of course, Improved Precise Shot certainly doesn't need to be any stronger than it already is.
|
|
Yes.
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.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).(Emphasis mine).Reach attack?
(Re-emphasis mine)
I fail to see the point you are trying to make.
I fail to see the point you are trying to make.
It's pretty clear he failed to read the full references - I think we've moved past this.
Artoo/Fomsie: Very good point.
|
|
*sigh*
If you care about my perspective (right or wrong), read the Full Cover rules, in order. If you want to trade quips, I'm done.
My perspective is that the bolded words above, "use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks", means this (and only this):
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).
But the "soft cover" is written in that line with ,
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).
|
|
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted ...use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks...Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacksIf we're going to be expansive about what that second line means, we should be consistent. Of course, Improved Precise Shot certainly doesn't need to be any stronger than it already is.
We aren't being "expansive", we are reading the rule as it is written and intended. You use the rules for ranged attacks because there is intervening space between attacker and target so more things can get in the way. If there is something between you and your target, it provides cover, it is preventing a clear strike at your enemy.
And again, just because the ranged combat rules are used to determine cover... because those rules were written with the idea that there would be space between attacker and target... does not mean that they become a ranged attack, they are reach not projectile. Still melee.
My perspective is that the bolded words above, "use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks", means this (and only this):
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).
What you're not seeing, though, is that "soft cover" is simply a kind of "cover" and is acknowledged as such, and the relevant "cover" rules are therefore identical. In particular, soft cover provides exactly the same +4 to AC that that rule does.
Artoo and Fomsie have about 90% convinced me. There's still about 10% of me saying that the "use rules for ranged attacks" was intended only to refer to which line drawing method to use.
Thank you for the debate Artoo, Fomsie.
I fail to see the point you are trying to make.Yes.
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.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).(Emphasis mine).Reach attack?
(Re-emphasis mine)
Okay
You don't need to include the rules for soft cover at all to determine that creatures provide cover against melee attacks against non adjacent enemies.
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.Okay, you're attacking something that's not adjacent, so you use the rules for ranged attacks. What do those say?
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).Did drawing a line from the selected corner of your square to any corner of your target's square go through a square occupied by a creature? If it did, your target has cover from your attack.
The soft cover rules don't enter into it at all. Soft cover does not add that creatures provide cover, that's already mentioned in the basic rules for determining cover. It adds that cover provided by creatures doesn't provide a bonus to reflex saves or allow you to make a stealth check. So this:
Later on, it says "Oh yes, and you can also get cover from other creatures, but only on ranged attacks."Isn't really correct. Later on it actually says "Oh, that cover we mentioned that you get from other creatures only gives the AC benefit, not the reflex saves or stealth checks."
I concur with all of this.
However, I wonder about; "Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion."
Does this apply? Can/should it?
If there is only a creature in your way, it would seem exceedingly likely that over half your target is still visible.
I fail to see the point you are trying to make.It's pretty clear he failed to read the full references - I think we've moved past this.
Artoo/Fomsie: Very good point.
Lol...
There is no such thing as a "reach attack".
There are melee attacks. And ranged attacks. The melee attack with a reach weapon (or natural reach) uses the 'ranged attack' entry in the cover section. I was highlighting that.
I thought that was obvious.
|
|
Artoo and Fomsie have about 90% convinced me. There's still about 10% of me saying that the "use rules for ranged attacks" was intended only to refer to which line drawing method to use.
Thank you for the debate Artoo, Fomsie.
So, what part of the cover rules would you be removing from the line-drawing part?
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).
So, that is, in a nutshell, the rule for ranged (and reach) cover.
If you don't end it at choose a corner, you have to deal with the definition, including creatures, of what provides cover.
For Remy: Partial cover means, for example, a small creature between you anbd a large creature. You would have a vast majority of your target clear of the cover, so it is only partial, if not no cover.
I think there is a discussion of different size creatures in combat, probably in regard to when you get the -4 penalty for firing into melee, in the rules somewhere.
Partial cover would come into play if the target stands behind a low (up to your hips) wall or similar, or if a large creature is standing/attacking from behind (=between you and your target) a medium sized creature.
Ruyan.
Edit:Wow, 19 min difference and Kinevon's post wasn't showing... Ninja'ed.
|
Another thing to remember, an attacker using a reach weapon with a creature in the way of his target cannot make attacks of opportunity against them.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
Good catch. I had forgot that would also apply to a melee attack with a reach weapon (or enlarged reach).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a detail of the Cover Rules that both applies and has not been raised.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.
Here's how you can make this work for you:
1. Enlarge your 6'3" Fighter who wields a glaive or other reach weapon. This figure is now 12'6" tall and has a 20' reach.
2. Stand your 6'2" fighter, possibly fighting sword and board, in front of your enlarged Polearm Fighter.
3. The front sword and board fighter ia a low obstacle, being less than half the height of the glaive wielder. Thus, 'the attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target'.
G = Glaive fighter 12'6"
s = capable 6' 2" sword and board fighter who understands tactics
S = stupid 6' 4" fighter who does not understand tactics
# = 5' space that provides cover from Glaive Wielder (no AoOs)
* = 5' space without cover, where glaive wielder gets AoOs
. = Out of 20' reach
GGs#**......
GGS###......
The polearm fighter can take AoOs over the head of a short adjacent ally!