Cover, reach, and AoO?

[moritheil]

[MM p. 312, Natural Weapons]
"Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage."

An appendage can be either an arm or a leg in this case.

Ah, a clear and referenced answer. Thank you.

 

[Felon]

Heh. The situation described is mentioned in this WotC web article that went up a few days ago:

Opportunity Knocks

 

[Felnar]

i vote NO COVER, yes to AoO
according to the MM a kobold is 2 to 2-1/2 feet tall
thats not even enough to count as low cover...
kobolds are so small i see no reason you shouldnt be able to attack over them

but then again i'm biased cause i hate the small size category

 

[ElectricDragon]

Soft Cover only works against ranged attacks. Now it says that reach weapons use the rules for ranged attacks, I assume that this means for determining whether an obstacle provides cover or not; but does it also mean that reach weapons are treated as ranged attacks?

Nitpicking Dave

 

[Hypersmurf]

Soft Cover only works against ranged attacks. Now it says that reach weapons use the rules for ranged attacks, I assume that this means for determining whether an obstacle provides cover or not; but does it also mean that reach weapons are treated as ranged attacks?

Reach weapons don't use 'the rules for ranged attacks'; they use 'the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks'.

So no, an attack with a reach weapons is a melee attack, for all other purposes.

-Hyp.

 

[ElectricDragon]

So, As I thought, no kobold cover for reach weapons.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, As I thought, no kobold cover for reach weapons.

Uh... I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

Attacks with reach weapons are melee attacks... but you use the rules for determining cover for ranged attacks.

Does the kobold count as cover for a ranged attack? Yes, it does... therefore it provides cover against a reach attack against a non-adjacent target.

If the kobold is no higher than half your height, it doesn't provide cover for someone more than thirty feet away, and it doesn't provide cover if you're closer to the kobold than the opponent is. But in the example provided, the sorcerer and the warforged are both 5 feet from the kobold. Therefore the warforged is not closer to the kobold than the sorcerer is; therefore the sorcerer has cover against the warforged's attack.

-Hyp.

 

[Felnar]

so if instead of a kobolds they were tiny monstrous scorpions, would they still provide cover?
does a chair count as cover?
does a puppy?

how big does something have to be to count as cover?

 

[3d6]

The relevant rules would be:

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.

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.

It specifies a maximum for what is considered "low cover" vs. normal cover, but it doesn't specify a minimum. However, a kobold is about 3 feet tall, or about one-half a human's height, which is the maximum threshold for low cover, so it certainly counts as low cover for a Medium creature. For Tiny and smaller creatures, I have no idea.

 

[Felnar]

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.

i read this as:
Creatures that are within 30 feet of a wall can only be attacked normally (ie. target doesnt have cover) if the wall is shorter than half the attackers height, unless the attacker is closer to the wall than the victim.
Thus, if the victim is within 30ft of a wall which is taller than half the attackers height, they always have cover, unless the attacker is closer to the wall than the victim.

so in the case of a human with a reach weapon attacking over a low wall, the victim only has cover if the wall is taller than half the attackers height.

as i stated earlier, the wall in this case is a kobold,
and the MonterManual says a kobold is 2 to 2-1/2 feet tall,
so as long as the attacker is at least 5ft tall, the kobold does not grant soft cover to the sorcerer, and the sorcerer provokes AoO's

the only potential problem i can see is: according to the rules in the jump skill description, a small creature has a vertical reach of 4 ft, so if a kobold holds its arms straight up, does it then count as a 4ft wall, and then provide cover? (which is more than half a humans height)