"Striking the cover instead of a missed target" and Reach Weapons

[Hypersmurf]

I have a longspear. I want to attack the orc ten feet away. But my buddy is between us, which grants the orc one-half cover against my attack.

Let's say they both have an AC of 14. I roll a 16 on my attack - it would hit the orc, except for the +4 cover bonus he gets because my friend is in the way. So I compare that 16 to my friend's AC... oops. A hit.

But he's only 5' away. Does the rule apply in this case?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I have a longspear. I want to attack the orc ten feet away. But my buddy is between us, which grants the orc one-half cover against my attack.

Let's say they both have an AC of 14. I roll a 16 on my attack - it would hit the orc, except for the +4 cover bonus he gets because my friend is in the way. So I compare that 16 to my friend's AC... oops. A hit.

But he's only 5' away. Does the rule apply in this case?

-Hyp.

You miss because of the cover, but you don't damage your ally. Basically you bumped him with the haft and it threw your aim off.

This is answered in the FAQ somewhere, but I'm too tired to search it out. Sorry.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: "Striking the cover instead of a missed target" and Reach Weapons

You miss because of the cover, but you don't damage your ally. Basically you bumped him with the haft and it threw your aim off.

Cool. So that only applies to weapons that could target the cover if the wielder chose - ranged weapons or inclusive-reach weapons, for example?

Makes sense

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

I think it would apply to cover in the opponents square such as a tower shield, low wall or an ally in a grapple with your target.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Grappling does not provide cover against melee attacks.

It requires random determination of target for ranged attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Camarath]

Yes your right I was trying to think of a reason your ally would be in an opponents square and i forgot that rule. Does that apply to bull rushes or other times when your ally is in the same as an opponents square?

 

[dcollins]

But he's only 5' away. Does the rule apply in this case?

Actually, this is specified within the rule that gives cover to such attacks from reach weapons. PHB p. 132: "Cover and Reach Weapons... If you hit the creature prividing cover, it takes no damage because you strike it with the haft of your weapon."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re: "Striking the cover instead of a missed target" and Reach Weapons

Actually, this is specified within the rule that gives cover to such attacks from reach weapons. PHB p. 132: "Cover and Reach Weapons... If you hit the creature prividing cover, it takes no damage because you strike it with the haft of your weapon."

Useless bloody SRD...!

Muttermuttermutter...

-Hyp.

 

[Zhure]

Re: Re: "Striking the cover instead of a missed target" and Reach Weapons

Actually, this is specified within the rule that gives cover to such attacks from reach weapons. PHB p. 132: "Cover and Reach Weapons... If you hit the creature prividing cover, it takes no damage because you strike it with the haft of your weapon."

The 'haft' of a spiked chain is still owie?

 

[Darklone]

Re: Re: Re: "Striking the cover instead of a missed target" and Reach Weapons

The 'haft' of a spiked chain is still owie?

I'd say sure.