Reach Weapons through occupied squares

[LostSoul]

Simple question that I'm sure has been asked before:

Can you attack a creature with a reach weapon if the square between you two is blocked by another creature?

For simplicity's sake, let's say that you're medium, the creature you're hitting is medium, and the one in between you two is medium; and you're in a 5' wide hallway.

Would your answer change if any of these variables changed? (Say, for example, it's a large giant striking over the head of an orc.)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Can you attack a creature with a reach weapon if the square between you two is blocked by another creature?

Yes. But since you're making a melee attack against a non-adjacent creature, you use the rules for determining cover against ranged attacks, and the creature gets a +4 bonus to AC for soft cover.

-Hyp.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Hyp, do you still have a chance of striking your ally (as you do when you shoot into a melee)?

AR

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, do you still have a chance of striking your ally (as you do when you shoot into a melee)?

You don't have a chance of striking your ally when you shoot into a melee in 3.5, unless you're using a variant rule.

-Hyp.

 

[myradale]

I hate to ask, but I feel ok about it because smurf seems like a stickler for this sort of thing himself.
Do you have any RAW quotes or anything to back up the "reach weapon = ranged attack" arguement?

Why would THIS come into play and not the "firing into melee" problems?

Don't mean to sound snipe-ish... it's just late here. I'm just curious myself as I just started to work with the reach weapons.

 

[jmucchiello]

Do you have any RAW quotes or anything to back up the "reach weapon = ranged attack" arguement?

In the SRD CombatII.rtf under COVER it states: "When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). 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."

Also in that file is this chart:

TABLE: Armor Class Modifiers
Defender is ...... Melee ... Ranged
Behind Cover .... +4 .... +4

 

[Hypersmurf]

I hate to ask, but I feel ok about it because smurf seems like a stickler for this sort of thing himself.
Do you have any RAW quotes or anything to back up the "reach weapon = ranged attack" arguement?

Sure. In the PHB, Combat chapter, Combat Modifiers, Cover:
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.

Why would THIS come into play and not the "firing into melee" problems?

There is no 'firing into melee' problem in 3.5, as far as hitting the wrong target goes.

In 3E, there were rules for "Striking Cover instead of the missed target". In 3.5, that only appears as an optional variant rule in the DMG. It's not the default rule.

In 3E, you generally couldn't accidentally damage cover with a polearm anyway, because you'd be bonking them with the haft, instead of hitting them with the dangerous part. (3E PHB p132, Cover and Reach Weapons.)

-Hyp.

 

[kjenks]

Hypersmurf has it exactly right, but I want to point out an ambiguity introduced by the PH Errata.

There's an errata entry which says that soft cover does not apply to melee weapons. Then it goes on to modify only the rules for soft cover with a melee weapon in an adjacent square.

That leaves us wondering: does soft cover apply to a melee weapon attacking a non-adjacent square?

I think it does, so I agree with Hyp. But I wouldn't argue with a DM who decided that soft cover never applies to any melee weapons, citing the errata.

 

[myradale]

Thanks Smurf.
You're quickly becoming my game's go-to answer guy. You can back up an arguement with "it says so here in the players guide" or "hypersmurf says so" with pretty close to the same authority.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There's an errata entry which says that soft cover does not apply to melee weapons.

Well, that entry was necessary because the line "creatures can provide you with cover against ranged attacks" was accidentally written "creatures can provide you with cover against melee attacks" in the PHB.

Once you make that correction, the line saying that reach weapons use the rules for cover from ranged weapons means that soft cover applies.

-Hyp.