Cover, Big Creatures and Ranged Attacks

[Scharlata]

Just doesn't make any sense to me!

Hi!

It does make sense when you consider the assumption that every creature "moves" [better: makes movements with its body] within its square/s when fighting. So the ogre does have the opportunity to "hide" his body for a few split seconds behind the wall without leaving his squares, when he gets shot at by the human. The orc does not have this opportunity. He must move at least 5 feet. That does constitute a movement when it isn't the orc's turn [better: it is not allowed!].

If you want, you could follow that argument.... (but it may be seen otherwise).

Kind regards

 

[Psimancer]

This seems fairly clear to me... Yes it specifies Melee in the text, but I do not see any reason not to apply the same ruling to ranged attacks.

??? Have you not read the rest of the post ???
PHB=Grey, MH=Clear, Conclusion=Entire Base… (if there is any doubt, read the MiniHB...)

If you want, you could follow that argument.... (but it may be seen otherwise).

Actually, you can justify it a number of ways, but instinctually it just seems wrong... you yourself (and Shilsen & Amul) took it as the other way initially – why? Because, this is a logical way of doing it…

Anyway, 'nuff said... we now KNOW how it is supposed to be done under the rules... whether we choose to follow that is a personal choice…

Thanx guys

 

[Amal Shukup]

??? Have you not read the rest of the post ???
PHB=Grey, MH=Clear, Conclusion=Entire Base… (if there is any doubt, read the MiniHB...)

Well, I did read that bit.

However, I'm not playing minis.

Nor shall I. WotC can put the core rules in the core books.

The argument that the big critter can move around inside his base (thus taking advantage of cover) does have merit. On the other hand, why not let the large critter do the same thing with respect to Melee combat? THAT is expressly verbotten in the RAW and I see no compelling reason to complicate the rules with respect to cover and large critters based on a non core text (possibly designed/written/edited by different folks with different priorities/game balance issues).

Particularly when 3.5 did such a good job of clarifying/simplifying cover rules in other respects...

Out of curiosity, how does the mini HB treat the melee case? By the square or by the base?

A'Mal

 

[Psimancer]

Out of curiosity, how does the mini HB treat the melee case? By the square or by the base?

The MH treats it in all respects as the PHB... it just clarifies it a bit... We are not taking the MH over the PHB in regards to rules, we are just using it to clear things up...

There is more to size than just width; height, mass, etc... So saying that a creature can freely move around on its base to get the cover bonus isn't overly valid... that’s what your Dex mod to AC is for...

See the graphic that I posted... I really can't justify the ogre having +3 AC over the orc (all other things being considered equal)...

And I am not even going to bring in the 'firing into melee' rules... they will just confuse the argument even more...

 

[Abraxas]

Given that 3.5 has done away with fractional cover (its now either you have cover or you don't and you might have improved cover if the DM so decides) I would allow the large creature to have the benefit of cover in the graphic posted.

In 3.0 the Ogre would have had 1/4 cover with a +2 to AC, In 3.5 I'm more comfortable giving the flat +4 cover bonus than giving no bonus.