Help me find this rule on cover!

[Mouseferatu]

Hey, guys.

My rules fu is failing me. I blame the fact that I've been sick.

I could have sworn that 3.5 had an optional rule for a system where, if you miss a target due to cover, you have a chance of striking and damaging the cover instead. I cannot, however, find it for the life of me.

Anyone who can point me to it would earn my undying (or at least unsleeping) gratitude.

 

[alan]

I couldn't find anything as far as rules are concerned. There is the note about attacking a defender who is being grappled (see Table 8-6, pg 151).

Since cover gives +4 to AC (or more, depending upon the whim of the GM), I'd rule that if the attack misses by the increase to AC due to cover, then it instead strikes the cover.

Alan

 

[ValhallaGH]

DMG 3.5, Page 24, bottom of the page.

Enjoy.

 

[Mouseferatu]

DMG 3.5, Page 24, bottom of the page.

Enjoy.

You, my friend, rock muchly. That's exactly what I couldn't find--despite actually looking in the index under sidebars!

 

[GwydapLlew]

Beaten to the punch.

Even the greatest have their off days, eh? Next thing you know, Hypersmurf will start telling us how halfling fighters can have an 18/00 Strength.

 

[frankthedm]

Since cover gives +4 to AC (or more, depending upon the whim of the GM), I'd rule that if the attack misses by the increase to AC due to cover, then it instead strikes the cover.

Simple and elegant. I think that was the way that 'varient' worked. Real nice when those sudden maximised disintegrate rays are being shot around.