| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hi everyone!
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.
If i cast enlarge person on myself and i'm a monk i have a natural reach of 10' and i have two enemy in front of me.
If i want to attack the far one does he have a bonus granted from cover?EXAMPLE:
XX
XX
A
B
Where X = me
A = Enemy 1
B = Enemy 2
I want to attack Enemy 2 and, RAW, since i'm not using a reach weapon but my natural reach...i don't think that A grant B cover from my attack.
Thank you for the answers!
Regardless of how you're attacking an enemy not adjacent to you, intervening creatures provide cover. However, you could argue that due to your height, A doesn't really provide cover.
To expand on that last bit,
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.
In this case A's height hasn't been given but is probably no more than half yours. But since you and B are equidistant from A you can't ignore it anyway.
Regardless of how you're attacking an enemy not adjacent to you, intervening creatures provide cover. However, you could argue that due to your height, A doesn't really provide cover.To expand on that last bit,
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.In this case A's height hasn't been given but is probably no more than half yours. But since you and B are equidistant from A you can't ignore it anyway.
So my height doesn't count at all? Even if i'm Huge for example?
I'don't understand why they put the reach weapon entry if everything that is not adiacent to me treat my attack as ranged attack
I say hit the FAQ button. It is not clear if they only intended for that to apply to reach weapons or anytime the same situation occurs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say hit the FAQ button. It is not clear if they only intended for that to apply to reach weapons or anytime the same situation occurs.
If you take out the parenthetical example you get this:
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
The example isn't limiting it, just providing one of the most common places it would apply. Anytime you are making a melee attack against creatures not adjacent, you use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
It is a rule I have never seen enforced, and I don't enforce myself, but if I did I would apply it to reach weapons and natural reach.
It helps balance reach weapons when used with a tank style character ahead of you. Yes your friend can block the enemies, and you can attack around him to hit them, but it is harder to do so.
|
Remember that these rules do NOT apply to reach melee attacks. The rule specifically references the ranged attack rules which, interestingly enough, are found in the preceding paragraph:
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 in the OP's situation:
EXAMPLE:
XX
XX
A
B
Our hero can select his BEST corner, but he still must be able to reach EVERY corner of their square. Since the leftmost corner of B's square adjacent to A will be impossible to reach without going through A, cover will be unavoidable.
|
Good thing it's only soft cover), so -4 to hit (officially +4 to the target's AC, but the end result is the same) rather than a percentage miss chance.
It's actually a difference I really appreciate, because it puts the onus on the GM to determine whether cover is a factor. When I'm a player, I never subtract for cover from my attacks. I let the GM include it. When I'm attacked, I always ask, "Do I receive a cover bonus," even though I usually know the answer, so that we're not both calculating it. If the GM asks, "Did you take away 4 for cover?" I say "No, that's an AC thing, so I figured you'd do it." If they subsequently say, "Go ahead and include it in your attacks," then I'll do so. (Maybe they don't like doing math.) But I always default to leaving it to him.
When I'm the GM, I tell my players "add 4 to your AC for cover" whenever it applies, so that it reinforces the idea that AC penalties and bonuses are the responsibility of the target, not the attacker.
I do the same with AC bonuses or penalties for being prone.