Attacking past your ally with a reach weapon

[Diirk]

Oh here it is:

Soft Cover
Player's Handbook, page 151

Soft cover works agaisnt ranged attacks, not melee attacks.
In the first paragraph, change "melee" to "ranged."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Pretty sure this was in the errata.. soft cover doesn't apply to melee, so no +4 bonus to ac anymore for the defender (in 3.5)

But when you make a melee attack against a creature who isn't adjacent to you, you use the cover rules for ranged weapons.

So soft cover does apply as long as you're using a reach weapon against someone more than 5 feet away from you.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

But when you make a melee attack against a creature who isn't adjacent to you, you use the cover rules for ranged weapons.

Is this actually stated in the rules somewhere, Hyp? I don't need a page number, I'm just asking if you know this was explicitly stated in the rules, or whether you're extrapolating here.

It's a huge hit to a reach weapon's usefulness if the defender gets that cover bonus, but I can see how it makes sense if it is so. And reach weapons still have other advantages, even if attacking through an ally is penalized.

The biggest point that concerned me was the chance of hitting the cover, which apparently has been done away with in 3.5, unless the DM invokes an Optional Rule in the DMG. So with my whip-dagger, I'll still want a clear line of fire, but if I don't have one, I can strike through an ally at a -4 penalty, without risk of hitting that ally.

But IF I RAN THINGS, this is how I would do it, in either edition. Logically, spears and other hafted weapons don't do damage with thier hafts, and so could not hurt the ally when his "cover-providing-ness" causes the fighter to miss the monster due to cover. Logically, since a spear cannot threaten the ally, he can't be hurt by it. Whips and spiked chains (and potentially other things), however, do threaten both the monster and the ally, and so in that case I would invoke the "you just hit the cover and hurt it lots" rule, but not the shooting into a melee penalty.

But keep in mind that a whip isn't dangerous along it's entire length either. The deadly part of it is the "snap" at the end, when you lash it at somebody, but at the same time the rest of the whip between the "snap" and the wielder is just a length of rope. So by your reasoning, the whip, too, should do no damage to allies between the wielder and the target.

 

[Diirk]

Oh, my bad I hadn't seen that rule before. Hmm, guess I have to break the news to the spiked chain user in our group then

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So soft cover does apply as long as you're using a reach weapon against someone more than 5 feet away from you.

So,

FAM

Where M is a monster with a 10' reach, say a troll. The monster attacks F, the fighter. Does F benefit from cover due to his ally (A) between them?

What if A is a dwarf? Does M still have a +4 AC bonus against F? Or is it reduced because A is only 3 feet tall?

 

[ConnorSB]

the bonus is always +4 regardless of size, IIRC. And technically you wouldn't be taking a -4 penalty, the monster would be getting a +4 bonus against your attack arrising from this specific circumstance.

And if then troll attacked you, your ally would indead also provide you with a +4 AC bonus against his attack.

At least thats how I'm reading the rules...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Is this actually stated in the rules somewhere, Hyp? I don't need a page number, I'm just asking if you know this was explicitly stated in the rules, or whether you're extrapolating here.

From the 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."

Where M is a monster with a 10' reach, say a troll. The monster attacks F, the fighter. Does F benefit from cover due to his ally (A) between them?

Yup.

"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."

What if A is a dwarf? Does M still have a +4 AC bonus against F? Or is it reduced because A is only 3 feet tall?

"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)."

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

FAM

Heh. I keep trying to figure out what "FAM" stands for before reading the next line. It's not a familiar acronym

I'd prefer to represent the situation thus:

[color=#dddddd] -------
 |.....|
 |.....[color=#cc5555]+[/color]###
 |.[color=white][b]@[/b][/color][color=red]h[/color][color=cyan]T[/color].|
 |.....|
 -------[/color]

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Thanks Hyp, I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out for me. This bard of mine is the first reach-weapon PC I've created in 3/3.5e, so it's taking me a while to get the hang of the ins-and-outs of this part of the ruleset.

the bonus is always +4 regardless of size, IIRC. And technically you wouldn't be taking a -4 penalty, the monster would be getting a +4 bonus against your attack arrising from this specific circumstance.

And if then troll attacked you, your ally would indead also provide you with a +4 AC bonus against his attack.

At least thats how I'm reading the rules...

Yeah, that looks like the way it works. Interesting.

As far as the -4 penalty vs +4 AC, I tend to always think of these things from a PC-centric viewpoint. Either way, my PC's attack is 4 points less effective. Though I suppose I should note it, so that I don't automatically subtract 4 from my attack roll, only to learn that the DM is adding 4 to the AC of the critter as well.

 

[ConnorSB]

Crap, now I have problems with this. Ok, lets assume that your ally is attacking the monster.

But, looking at what Hyp posted, if indead your whipdagger is counted as a ranged attack, then would not you suffer a -4 penalty for firing into melee, as well as the +4 cover bonus the monster gains?

Personally I think thats a bit much, but... hmmm....