Reach Weapons

[klofft]

I can't find a definitive ruling on this anywhere.

If a character is using a reach weapon and is standing in the square behind an ally who is engaged in melee combat, does the reach weapon have any penalty to hit the same opponent? I can find no rule that says that it does, and we've been playing that it doesn't (it was a common enough tactic throughout history, after all), but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything.

Thanks for the help in advance!
C

 

[Runestar]

It is mentioned under the rules for cover. So your enemy would get +4AC due to your ally providing soft cover against your reach attack.

Cover To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).



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.

 

[klofft]

Thanks.

 

[Vegepygmy]

It's also important to note that although (most printings of?) the Player's Handbook says that soft cover applies against melee attacks (page 151), the errata corrected it to apply against ranged attacks. Thus (since reach attacks use the ranged cover rules), soft cover applies against reach attacks.

 

[frankthedm]

(it was a common enough tactic throughout history, after all)

Yes, it has been done IRL, but it gets done in tight packed formations that are painfully unable to skirmish, which this ruleset assumes everyone can do automatically. Also just because it is done IRL, does not mean that the tactic still does not result in a penalty "to hit".

I'd recommend house ruling that the hindrances for squeezing and the hindrances for striking over an ally don't stack for spear/pike wielders. But to do that you have to also houserule troops in formation can end their turn squeezing.

IMO reducing the Ally as cover hindrance to 2 points, rather than 4 would be alright for spear/pike wielders. Though not for polearms designed for chopping and swinging.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

There is a general feat in the eberron campaign setting book that is in no way setting-specific called Precise Swing. It requires BAB +5 and allows you to "ignore the effects of Cover (but not Total Cover) when making any melee attack." I'm pretty sure there were other feats to do this with prerequisites that could be met at level 1, but I forget at the moment.

 

[klofft]

Thanks! That's a huge help for a player who has become rather disgruntled!

 

[frankthedm]

There is a general feat in the eberron campaign setting book that is in no way setting-specific called Precise Swing. It requires BAB +5 and allows you to "ignore the effects of Cover (but not Total Cover) when making any melee attack." I'm pretty sure there were other feats to do this with prerequisites that could be met at level 1, but I forget at the moment.

BAB+5? Well... I guess since that works against any cover, that's solid enough for a feat. Personally I'd say a feat to allow "ignore allies for purposes of melee cover" at most should be a BAB+1 prerequisite. Mmm, hobgoblin pike formations.