Spiked Chain/reach + Sneak attack question

[Jcosby]

I have a dual question; first I would like to know if it is possible to sneak attack with a “spiked chain”, secondly could you sneak attack a target through a friendly square?



Example would be the setup below. C = Character in party M = Monster and R = Rogue.



C M C R



In this setup I would like to know two things, can the rogue sneak attack through the friendly target and is the rogue considered in a position to flank since he is threatening the target since the spiked chain has reach?



Thanks

JCosby

 

[Staffan]

In this setup I would like to know two things, can the rogue sneak attack through the friendly target and is the rogue considered in a position to flank since he is threatening the target since the spiked chain has reach?

Yes, and yes.

 

[CM]

Note that the monster gets a +4 cover bonus to AC against the rogue's attacks for attacking through his friend's space.

 

[William_2]

If there is anything in the friendly square that provided concealment for your foe, then no SA; either way, you can make the melee attack through an occupied square. The target has soft cover, though, I believe, getting a +4 to AC. Better to have people shuffle about so that the Rogue isn’t behind someone.

Mind you, the idea of making a precise attack around another person with a chain is…absolutely ridiculous. How could you possibly not hit them, too? Er...not that I want one of those “I do this with my spiked chain all the time” answers... I think I prefer to think it is improbable.

 

[moritheil]

If there is anything in the friendly square that provided concealment for your foe, then no SA; either way, you can make the melee attack through an occupied square. The target has soft cover, though, I believe, getting a +4 to AC. Better to have people shuffle about so that the Rogue isn’t behind someone.

Mind you, the idea of making a precise attack around another person with a chain is…absolutely ridiculous. How could you possibly not hit them, too? Er...not that I want one of those “I do this with my spiked chain all the time” answers... I think I prefer to think it is improbable.

Heh, I'm guessing the rogue is paranoid about being eaten by the monster, and wants to hide behind a tank and use the spiked chain to deal SAs.

 

[Jcosby]

Sneak Attacks

If there is anything in the friendly square that provided concealment for your foe, then no SA; either way, you can make the melee attack through an occupied square. The target has soft cover, though, I believe, getting a +4 to AC. Better to have people shuffle about so that the Rogue isn’t behind someone.

Mind you, the idea of making a precise attack around another person with a chain is…absolutely ridiculous. How could you possibly not hit them, too? Er...not that I want one of those “I do this with my spiked chain all the time” answers... I think I prefer to think it is improbable.

Well, I'm not really concerned with "will it work in the real world" type issues. Thats a can of worms I'd rather not open when dealing with D&D and it's rules. I just choose to go with what is in the books. I figured the setup would work, and the target does get the soft cover (+4) bonus to AC which you could argue makes the target 20% harder to hit accounting for the friendly in the way. I would feel very comfortable with a PC saying they are going to shoot the chain through the legs, or over head etc of the friendly and make a spectacular shot for the hit.. It's all RP at that point, unless you are using some type of "called shot" in your game. You make the roll, you add 4 to the targets AC and you either hit or you don't. If you miss not only do you not deal SA damage you deal no damage.

So thanks for the replies I just wanted to make sure I was working the rules correctly. It made sense as with what someone else said. "The rogue doesn't want to get eaten by the monster" and hiding behind the tank is much smarter.

Again, thanks
Jcosby

 

[William_2]

I don't think the Rogue is effectively hiding at all. My point was, there are many places he could use his reach weapon from without his ally giving the opponent cover, or the opponent being adjacent. The situation as presented seems to be that the Rogue will have a reduced chance to hit, while if the monster is interested in the Rogue, it merely takes a 5 foot step before hitting them...Just a thought. Being behind a friend is really only a good thing when the monster is attacking, not the Rogue. Give it a shot, though, I suppose. Could well be smarter, I don't know- just chipping in.

 

[Nareau]

Didn't soft cover used to involve a risk of hitting the cover itself?

IE
Your intended target has an AC of 16
Your friend is standing in the way, giving the target an effective AC of 20 against your attack
Your friend has an AC of 18
You roll, and hit AC 18
You hit your friend.

I no longer see that in the SRD. Did I just imagine it in the first place?

Spider

 

[moritheil]

Didn't soft cover used to involve a risk of hitting the cover itself?

IE
Your intended target has an AC of 16
Your friend is standing in the way, giving the target an effective AC of 20 against your attack
Your friend has an AC of 18
You roll, and hit AC 18
You hit your friend.

I no longer see that in the SRD. Did I just imagine it in the first place?

Spider

It's not currently in the SRD, as my players are fond of reminding me. I nevertheless have something of a house rule that a natural 1 on an attack hits an ally instead. It provides for humor.

 

[IcyCool]

Didn't soft cover used to involve a risk of hitting the cover itself?

IE
Your intended target has an AC of 16
Your friend is standing in the way, giving the target an effective AC of 20 against your attack
Your friend has an AC of 18
You roll, and hit AC 18
You hit your friend.

I no longer see that in the SRD. Did I just imagine it in the first place?

Spider

Striking cover is a variant rule presented in the DMG.