Reach - Large Humanoid

[grymm]

Howdy everyone.

I have a question about reach when it comes to Large (Tall) Humanoids. Are they able to hit enemies with Medium or Smaller Humanoids in front of him?

For example:
I know the ogre can hit the skeleton to the right and behind to the left but can he attack the skeletons in front of the human and the gnome without penalty?
http://controlyouroffspring.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Reach2.jpg

I would say yes but I seeing it being a little problematic.

Thoughts?

[Silvanoshei]

He can hit them without penalty. If it was ranged attack.... something totally different and would spike penalties.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You can but he gets cover bonus to AC.


SRD cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#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.

[grymm]

Thanks much for the assistance.

[Silvanoshei]

I don't think that's correct. Here's my reasoning. You're saying a cover penalty is included because you're saying this orge is attacking with a reach weapon. That cannot be the case, because if he was using a reach weapon, he would not be able to attack those skeletons at all.


Reach Weapons
Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

So, we have a ogre, who can use a non-reach weapon, like lets say a dagger, and still hit those skeletons 10 ft. away. Those rules don't apply to the ogre's ability to swing his arms over, around, passed and to the skeletons. I'd agree if he was using some sort of ranged, or reach weapon, but the OP was clearly not making such a case for the ogre.

If you double a large creatures range, it can be applied to his "adjacent-ness" of 10ft as well.

I will say that adjacent means 5ft, and by RAW yes, the ogre would get a penalty, but... that's my view anyway lol.

[Spuddles]

I don't think that's correct. Here's my reasoning. You're saying a cover penalty is included because you're saying this orge is attacking with a reach weapon. That cannot be the case, because if he was using a reach weapon, he would not be able to attack those skeletons at all.



So, we have a ogre, who can use a non-reach weapon, like lets say a dagger, and still hit those skeletons 10 ft. away. Those rules don't apply to the ogre's ability to swing his arms over, around, passed and to the skeletons. I'd agree if he was using some sort of ranged, or reach weapon, but the OP was clearly not making such a case for the ogre.

If you double a large creatures range, it can be applied to his "adjacent-ness" of 10ft as well.

I will say that adjacent means 5ft, and by RAW yes, the ogre would get a penalty, but... that's my view anyway lol.

Dude, you're just making up rules.

The rules:
SRD 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.

"Such as" does not mean "if and only if".

You're egregiously misinterpreting the rules, and I am uncertain why.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The "such as with a reach weapon" is just an example. And there are reach weapons that have no minimum range such as the spiked chain, kusari-gama,etc.
Being adjacent is pretty clearly "in a space that borders yours".
And it makes logical sense: The human and dwarf are in the way of your strike, making the skeletons harder to hit.

[Silvanoshei]

Dude, you're just making up rules.

The rules:
SRD 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.

"Such as" does not mean "if and only if".

You're egregiously misinterpreting the rules, and I am uncertain why.

For example, you're trying to hit a cat who is 10 ft away with a spear (I would use huge arms, but i'm talking about realistic example that can replace the spear with the ogres arms), and you have another cat 5 ft from you in front of the other cat. Do you seriously think that other cat is going to affect your strike of the 10 ft. cat? I rest my case....

*Not trying to say the above adjacent 5ft ogre gets penalty is not correct ruling, i'm just telling you why it doesn't make sense and is a valid notation to just double the adjacent range of larger creatures.*

** Another in-game example, a 5ft tiny spider is in front of a 10 ft. human, that's giving the human cover????????? ** :smallconfused:

[sleepyphoenixx]

For example, you're trying to hit a cat who is 10 ft away with a spear (I would use huge arms, but i'm talking about realistic example that can replace the spear with the ogres arms), and you have another cat 5 ft from you in front of the other cat. Do you seriously think that other cat is going to affect your strike of the 10 ft. cat? I rest my case....

That's debatable. It's quite possible that the cover-giving cat gets in the way of your strike since it's moving. Splitting combat into turns is just an abstraction after all.

It also looks a lot different if it's a human standing in front of another human, especially if they are allies and one is actively trying to prevent you from striking his friend.

Also, in the example you provided the cat would have no cover against an ogre.



SRD
Big Creatures and Cover

Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.

[Silvanoshei]

The cat example was a real life scenario, ogre's don't exist lol.

[Lord Vukodlak]

For example, you're trying to hit a cat who is 10 ft away with a spear (I would use huge arms, but i'm talking about realistic example that can replace the spear with the ogres arms), and you have another cat 5 ft from you in front of the other cat. Do you seriously think that other cat is going to affect your strike of the 10 ft. cat? I rest my case....
The cat is a tiny animal two size categories smaller than the person, I can see the case where if your two sizes larger then the intervening creature it can't provide cover. But we aren't dealing with two size categories smaller we're dealing with one.

If your six-feet tall and there's a person three feet stall standing in front of you he's going to make hitting the three foot guy behind him more difficult, or even another sixfoot guy. He'll get in the way of potential attack paths unlike a tiny animal.

[Silvanoshei]

The cat is a tiny animal two size categories smaller than the person, I can see the case where if your two sizes larger then the intervening creature it can't provide cover. But we aren't dealing with two size categories smaller we're dealing with one.

If your six-feet tall and there's a person three feet stall standing in front of you he's going to make hitting the three foot guy behind him more difficult, or even another sixfoot guy. He'll get in the way of potential attack paths unlike a tiny animal.

There's a fallacy in your logic with the rules being iron clad though. You're saying you can understand the case of it being absurd with 2 size categories smaller but not with 1 size. If you're the same size and you're in front of said thing you're trying to hit, of course it makes sense to give you a penalty for trying to attack through said object. I have no objections to this course of action.

What I am against, is giving cover to a human who is in front of a tiny spider. Per the rules, human attack a human 10 ft. away, will get cover from a tiny spider if inbetween them. That is absurd.

A case can be made, for said ogre, because of the size difference, true it's only 1 size, but the ogre's long arm reach could probably just go over said things in his way 5ft from him. Debatable yes, ironclad ruling all the time, no.

** A side note to the ogre, he is 10 feet tall with a 5 foot arm length, he would have no trouble hitting things 10 feet away, he would have to go out of his way to hit things adjacent to him in all actuality. **

[Lord Vukodlak]

A case can be made, for said ogre, because of the size difference, true it's only 1 size, but the ogre's long arm reach could probably just go over said things in his way 5ft from him. Debatable yes, ironclad ruling all the time, no.

** A side note to the ogre, he is 10 feet tall with a 5 foot arm length, he would have no trouble hitting things 10 feet away, he would have to go out of his way to hit things adjacent to him in all actuality. **

No he would have trouble because he can't swing in any direction he chooses.

Cover is about the path from you to the target creature being partially blocked. Being able to get around the intervening obstacle just means its not total cover. I could swing over a waist high fence to swipe a guy in the chest with a Glaive but the fence would stop be from hitting the guy in the legs thus he has at least some cover from my attack.

I agree that the always is a mistake which is why I said two size category difference.

[Silvanoshei]

No he would have trouble because he can't swing in any direction he chooses.

Cover is about the path from you to the target creature being partially blocked. Being able to get around the intervening obstacle just means its not total cover. I could swing over a waist high fence to swipe a guy in the chest with a Glaive but the fence would stop be from hitting the guy in the legs thus he has at least some cover from my attack.

I agree that the always is a mistake which is why I said two size category difference.

Forgive my really bad drawing, but it clearly says it all.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/Urumichan/Ogre.jpg (http://s148.photobucket.com/user/Urumichan/media/Ogre.jpg.html)

[Lord Vukodlak]

Forgive my really bad drawing, but it clearly says it all.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/Urumichan/Ogre.jpg (http://s148.photobucket.com/user/Urumichan/media/Ogre.jpg.html)

Your right it clearly demonstrates the limited options the ogre has in terms of swinging low at the creature 10ft away the weapon must be held and swung at an awkward angle. The ogre can't swing down with his arm he has to swing his arm out strait in order to hit the target 10ft away otherwise he'd hit the adjacent creature instead.
Thus proving why the adjacent creature would provide cover.

[Silvanoshei]

Your right it clearly demonstrates the limited options the ogre has in terms of swinging low at the creature 10ft away the weapon must be held and swung at an awkward angle. It very clearly shows the added difficulty in attacking such a creature. The ogre can't swing down with his arm he has to swing his arm out strait in order to hit the target 10ft away.

I said forgive the bad drawing, I'm clearly ( or failed attempt to) show you that his natural arm length goes over the other human. He can hit every single part ( no cover) on the 10 ft. human.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I said forgive the bad drawing, I'm clearly ( or failed attempt to) show you that his natural arm length goes over the other human. He can hit every single part ( no cover) on the 10 ft. human.

It doesn't matter that his arm goes over the other human's head. That can maybe effect the degree of cover but the adjacent creature would still get in the way of some swings of his weapon because the ogre is unable to swing his arm low thus cover. In your drawing the ogre's arm is straight out, to swing at the guys lower body you'd swing your arm low. In which case the adjacent man would get in the way.

Seriously pick up a broom and hold it like your ogre is holding that sword, arm straight out and wrist tilted down so your using the same angle.

[Silvanoshei]

It doesn't matter that his arm goes over the other human's head. That can maybe effect the degree of cover but the adjacent creature would still get in the way of some swings of his weapon because the ogre is unable to swing his arm low thus cover. In your drawing the ogre's arm is straight out, to swing at the guys lower body you'd swing your arm low. In which case the adjacent man would get in the way.

Seriously pick up a broom and hold it like your ogre is holding that sword, arm straight out and wrist tilted down so your using the same angle.

You are judging my drawings too harshly, let me clean it up and fix the ogre.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/Urumichan/Ogre2.jpg (http://s148.photobucket.com/user/Urumichan/media/Ogre2.jpg.html)

You can't sit there and tell me just because you can't do a spinning low uppercut dragon cut ultra sword slice means you can't fight effectively. The ogre can swing that sword mid level and hit that human no problems.

Lets go the other scale, one that proves this rule is broke.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/Urumichan/Dumb.jpg (http://s148.photobucket.com/user/Urumichan/media/Dumb.jpg.html)

It's up to the DM to give final call on whether or not an attack can't be done without penalty. You agree to this, and that ogre can attack that human without any trouble, just because you want to get low uppercut slices doesn't mean he can't attack without that human giving him cover.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You are judging my drawings too harshly, let me clean it up and fix the ogre.
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s31/Urumichan/Ogre2.jpg (http://s148.photobucket.com/user/Urumichan/media/Ogre2.jpg.html)

You can't sit there and tell me just because you can't do a spinning low uppercut dragon cut ultra sword slice means you can't fight effectively. The ogre can swing that sword mid level and hit that human no problems.

Considering that Ogre is now quite a bit taller then the last one when compared to the humans and he still would have trouble going after the further targets legs. I can still say he would still be dealing with at least partial cover (+2 AC).

The ogre can't uppercut he can't downward swing at the legs, nor can he sweep his weapon low at the legs. The adjacent creature gets in the way of striking at the further creatures lower body which is why it would have cover against the ogre. Part of its body is covered from attacks.

[Silvanoshei]

Considering that Ogre is now quite a bit taller then the last one when compared to the humans and he still would have trouble going after the further targets legs. I can still say he would still be dealing with at least partial cover (+2 AC).

The ogre can't uppercut he can't downward swing at the legs, nor can he sweep his weapon low at the legs. The adjacent creature gets in the way of striking at the further creatures lower body which is why it would have cover against the ogre. Part of its body is covered from attacks.

lol, its the same size......... 10ft. ogre.

Anyway, the ogre can hit the legs with a slight adjustment of the sword if he wanted to hit that area illustrated in the first picture. Just because you think my drawing makes the ogre "look awkward" doesn't justify the fact the ogre can hit every part of the 10 foot human.

The ogre is almost twice the size of a human, and can reach beyond and over his head. Good call not tackling the spider argument, because it proves this rule is very subjective.

[Lord Vukodlak]

lol, its the same size......... 10ft. ogre.

Anyway, the ogre can hit the legs with a slight adjustment of the sword if he wanted to hit that area illustrated in the first picture. Just because you think my drawing makes the ogre "look awkward" doesn't justify the fact the ogre can hit every part of the 10 foot human.

The ogre is almost twice the size of a human, and can reach beyond and over his head. Good call not tackling the spider argument, because it proves this rule is very subjective.

The ogre(in the picture) is two and a half times the size of the human which is funny because humans tend to be about five and 1/2 feet tall while ogres cap out at 10ft. My point is not that rule doesn't need work, its that a medium sized creature would still provide cover against the ogre. Which is why I said it be fair to say a two size category difference can't provide cover.

A 10ft sized ogre can not hit every part of the human, your pictures only demonstrate that point. If he tried to hit the area from the first picture the top of the adjacent human would get in the way. Especially when you consider the humans could be anywhere within their five foot square during a round.

[Silvanoshei]

Which is why I said it be fair to say a two size category difference can't provide cover.

Then you're not following the rules, as what I do as well as DM. You'd let the 10 ft. human have +2 AC, I would not. We're both rule breakers, and it's subjective, like I been trying to say all along lol. I think it's a moot point to continue the Ogre human argument since we both agree +4 AC cover bonus is a load of garbage.