Polearms: Do They and Should They...?

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Do polearm wielding characters who are in rear ranks (e.g. middle and rear ranks of polearm wielders) suffer a penalty due to cover being provided by the front rank?

A
B
C

If A is the polearm wielder, B is an ally of A (say, the front rank), and C is the enemy, does B provide cover for C? And is so, should it? (since polearms were traditional used in ranks)

 

[Lord Wyrm]

They technically provide cover. (though as a DM I could care less about that one)

On a side note: They shouldn't be able to strike the cover as they extend past it, its just hard to angle them right to strike the enemy. Course you could argue creatures larger than your ally (a troll or dragon for instance) do not gain cover.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Do polearm wielding characters who are in rear ranks (e.g. middle and rear ranks of polearm wielders) suffer a penalty due to cover being provided by the front rank?

Yes.

If A is the polearm wielder, B is an ally of A (say, the front rank), and C is the enemy, does B provide cover for C? And is so, should it? (since polearms were traditional used in ranks)

Yes. They may have been commonly used that by because it's safer for the polearm wielder. If he's particularly skilled, the cover penalty will not matter much (there might be a feat to help offset the cover bonus).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do polearm wielding characters who are in rear ranks (e.g. middle and rear ranks of polearm wielders) suffer a penalty due to cover being provided by the front rank?

Soft cover applies to ranged attacks, not melee attacks.

However, melee attacks made from a space that is not adjacent to the target (sych as you've described) use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks... therefore soft cover is applicable.

-Hyp.