Reaching past an ally?

[Caspian]

Alrighty, its been a while since I examined rules indepth so I'm looking for some help here. My GM ruled that when you use a reach weapon through any square that's occupied your target recieves soft cover. Is that the case? Is there a way around it (barring the obvious answer of "don't reach across occupied squares")

 

[howandwhy99]

I think there may be a Sage Advice on whether or not an ally in front of you gives cover to a reached opponent. My gut says yes and it's hard cover.
(Roman legions did this manuever all the time. I think a book a few years ago gave a feat to overcome this cover modifier)

Check the PHB Errata online for Soft Cover. The book was wrong. The description should have listed it as Ranged attacks not Melee attacks. This is really more the situation where an archer has an ally in line of sight between themselves and the target. That's why the target gets no Reflex bonus or hide opportunity.

 

[Inigo Carmine]

Yes, that is the case. There is no way around it that I know of. One of the splat books probably has a feat to negate it, but I don't use those much.

 

[Klaus]

Your opponent has a +4 AC bonus from cover. This can be negated with the feat Coordinated Shot, from Heroes of Battle.

 

[Draumr]

This errata for the PHB has lead me to believe that there is no penalty for attacking with a reach weapon through a square occupied by a creature:

Soft Cover
Player's Handbook, page 151
Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks.
In the first sentence of the paragraph, change “melee” to “ranged.”

The PHB rule that I think confuses most people: "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." applies to hard cover only.

A quick search through Sage Advice did not reveal anything further on this topic.

 

[MarkB]

The PHB rule that I think confuses most people: "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." applies to hard cover only.

Are you certain? It's not worded as applying only to hard cover in the SRD, which should include all errata.

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 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.

...

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 Hide check.

Yes, the statement about reach weapons and cover comes after a statement about non-reach weapons and hard cover - but there's no indication that the content of that first sentence is meant to modify the second.

 

[Delta]

It's very clear in 3.0. From the SRD:

Cover and Reach Weapons
If a character is using a reach weapon, another character standing between the attacker and the target provides cover to the target. Generally, if both of the other characters are the same size, the one furthest from the attacker has one-half cover (+4 AC).

The 3.5 rules garbled up the language, but the intent is still the same.

 

[Votan]

Yes, the statement about reach weapons and cover comes after a statement about non-reach weapons and hard cover - but there's no indication that the content of that first sentence is meant to modify the second.

What is confusing is the statement in PHB 3.5 errata:

"Soft cover works against ranged attacks, not melee attacks." in the errata. However, the rules then state (3.5 SRD) :"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."

So you don't use soft cover vs. melee attacks but only ranged attacks. Check.

Followed by:

Reach weapons use ranged weapon rules for determining cover when attacking non-adjacent targets. Check.

Therefore, when attacking non-adjacent targets you use the ranged weapon rules which allow for soft cover.

Amazing how errata can make the rules more confusing than before.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'd like to change my answer.

Soft cover makes more sense.

Foes couldn't hide behind your ally and neither would they afford them a Reflex save bonus.

 

[TheGogmagog]

I agree that there is a -4 to attack because of soft cover. I don't think there is a -4 for firing into melee though. Because the person providing cover isn't in a threatened square perhaps (except for chain)?

There is a teamwork skill that reduces penalties for firing into melee to -2 and -2. Precise shot would negate the penalty for firing into melee, but as stated above I don't think it applies to reach weapons.