Attacking around corners

[Vegepygmy]

Sorry, I should have said "things that block all corners of your square from reaching a corner of theirs."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but it is never required that all corners be blocked. One is sufficient.

 

[Noumenon]

OK, how about "things that block all corners of your square from reaching any corner of theirs." I have understood the concept this whole time, I just can't phrase it correctly. I can see why they went with the procedural "pick a corner" explanation now, even though I thought my shorter restatement would be better.

 

[Vegepygmy]

OK, how about "things that block all corners of your square from reaching any corner of theirs."

That still doesn't sound right to me.

I can see why they went with the procedural "pick a corner" explanation now...

Yep.

 

[Noumenon]

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.

I just realized the implications of this. If you are wielding a spiked chain against someone around a corner, you can back up one square, remaining on the same diagonal so the corner blocks just as much of your view as before, but now the opponent does not have cover. This would have come up in a real game situation last month. The PCs were playing ogres in the adventure The Giant's Skull, and a guard fled into a five-foot square guard post to get the horn and sound the alarm. The ogre charging across the bridge couldn't quite get straight in front of the guard house, so the guard got the benefit of cover. But if the ogre had stopped one square farther away, this rule would have let him ignore the cover. I don't like that.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I just realized the implications of this. If you are wielding a spiked chain against someone around a corner, you can back up one square, remaining on the same diagonal so the corner blocks just as much of your view as before, but now the opponent does not have cover.

If you mean this ...

XXX-S
XXX--
XXT--

... then you're incorrect. S has no corner he can choose that won't be blocked by a wall when tracing lines to T's corners.

If you mean this ...

XXX--
XXX-S
XXT--

... then you're correct.

 

[Noumenon]

S has no corner he can choose that won't be blocked by a wall when tracing lines to T's corners.

You read my description correctly, but what about T's bottom right corner? If you look on your keyboard's Num pad for an impromptu grid, it's easy to draw a line from any corner of the 9 key to the bottom right corner of 1 without crossing through 4. There are still lines that do cross 4, like the top left of 9 and the top left of 1, but that's only enough to establish melee cover -- not ranged cover, or "reach cover."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

You read my description correctly, but what about T's bottom right corner? If you look on your keyboard's Num pad for an impromptu grid, it's easy to draw a line from any corner of the 9 key to the bottom right corner of 1 without crossing through 4. There are still lines that do cross 4, like the top left of 9 and the top left of 1, but that's only enough to establish melee cover -- not ranged cover, or "reach cover."

You're still confused.

To avoid ranged cover, you still have to trace lines to all four of the Target's corners without passing through a wall. The distinction is that the Attacker gets to choose the starting corner and only picks one (obviously, the one that's not obstructed, if possible).

Melee cover, on the other hand, exists if any line from any of the Attacker's corners passes through a wall.

Again, in both cases you're testing to all four of the Target's corners. In melee cover, any blockage from any Attacker corner means cover exists. In ranged cover, any blockage from the best Attacker's corner -- and just that corner -- means cover exists.

 

[Kask]

Melee cover, on the other hand, exists if any line from any of the Attacker's corners passes through a wall

European castles had interesting design feature. Spiral staircases were designed so that if the occupants were retreating from invaders, the defenders shield arm (left arm) was against the inside wall. The sword arm was towards the outside. This gave an advantage to the defenders in melee against a right handed foe (most people).

 

[Noumenon]

Hm, I guess I didn't understand the square thing after all. I wonder if I'm just dumb or no one else really thinks about it? Thanks for explaining again in a different way.

If you mean this ...

XXX--
XXX-S
XXT--

... then you're correct.

That's kind of goofy, as it depends on the line drawn from the bottom corner of S to the top corner of T, which doesn't "cross" the border exactly, but runs 100% along it.

I don't even want to think about how these rules work in 3-D terrain -- fortunately, they've never come up.

 

[frankthedm]

Ninja can chose the best corner he wants to fling a throwing star from to determine cover. But Knight must check his entire space to Ninja's entire space to determine melee cover [which also blocks his AoOs]. "Ogre guts tu yuus bestest cornur tuu!"


From the way it seems to me the 3.5 ruleset automatically assumes a ranged attacker can pop out from behind the pillar and shoot every shot. This also means the ogre that is applying its reach can use those same rules to bypass cover.

The ogre charging across the bridge couldn't quite get straight in front of the guard house, so the guard got the benefit of cover. But if the ogre had stopped one square farther away, this rule would have let him ignore the cover. I don't like that.

What was the exact positioning? I'm not certain if the ogre should have been able to charge to be adjacent in a situation like that. Hell, the ogre was required by the rules to stop as soon as he could, he should have been using his reach.

First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent.