There was a bit of a kerfuffle last night when several players disagreed with the GM and he "threatened to quit GMing forever if we didn't begin respecting his rulings."
Anyways, we were fighting a couple of undead creatures that attacked us from their open standing coffins. The fighter moved to flank one of the monsters and the GM declared that the monster had total cover, as the fighter was facing the back of the coffin. The fighter grumbled a bit about the GM not describing things clearly enough (the GM initially described them as being raised daises, not coffins) but moved on. The GM also called the undead "wraiths" through most of the fight, with the players only realizing that they were actually fighting wights half way through when their abilities didn't add up (having solid forms, dealing slashing damage, not flying, etc.) To compound matters worse, the GM even had them go through walls.
Later in the fight, the fighter climbed atop one of the vertical coffins and attempted to swing his weapon down into the open side at the monster within. The GM called it greater cover. Just about everyone disagreed, but none on the same outcome. Somebody suggested it should be no cover, another only lesser cover, and another argued standard cover.
What do the rules say? What would you have said and why?
Later in the fight, the fighter climbed atop one of the vertical coffins and attempted to swing his weapon down into the open side at the monster within. The GM called it greater cover. Just about everyone disagreed, but none on the same outcome. Somebody suggested it should be no cover, another only lesser cover, and another argued standard cover.
What do the rules say? What would you have said and why?
...Usually, the GM can quickly decide whether your target has cover. If you’re uncertain or need to be more precise, draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target’s space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover (or greater cover if the obstruction is extreme or the target has Taken Cover)....
Depending on how your GM envisioned the depth of the coffins and the kind of weapon used for the attack (e.g. a pick or a flail are probably bypassing this type of cover much easier than a longsword) your GM was technically correct on how much cover this situation could possibly provide. I would probably have used standard cover, aka the same type of cover as when attacking around corners.
Also of note:
Special Circumstances Your GM might allow you to overcome your target’s cover in some situations. If you’re right next to an arrow slit, you can shoot without penalty, but you have greater cover against someone shooting back at you from far away. Your GM might let you reduce or negate cover by leaning around a corner to shoot or the like. This usually takes an action to set up, and the GM might measure cover from an edge or corner of your space instead of your center.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle last night when several players disagreed with the GM and he "threatened to quit GMing forever if we didn't begin respecting his rulings."
Anyways, we were fighting a couple of undead creatures that attacked us from their open standing coffins. The fighter moved to flank one of the monsters and the GM declared that the monster had total cover, as the fighter was facing the back of the coffin. The fighter grumbled a bit about the GM not describing things clearly enough (the GM initially described them as being raised daises, not coffins) but moved on. The GM also called the undead "wraiths" through most of the fight, with the players only realizing that they were actually fighting wights half way through when their abilities didn't add up (having solid forms, dealing slashing damage, not flying, etc.) To compound matters worse, the GM even had them go through walls.
Later in the fight, the fighter climbed atop one of the vertical coffins and attempted to swing his weapon down into the open side at the monster within. The GM called it greater cover. Just about everyone disagreed, but none on the same outcome. Somebody suggested it should be no cover, another only lesser cover, and another argued standard cover.
What do the rules say? What would you have said and why?
If the undead creature were totally inside this upright coffin, then I could argue greater cover from behind, standard cover from the side, and flat-footed from the front. From the front, the tight space would be like being prone, "Prone You’re lying on the ground. You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls." (PF2 Core Rulebook, page 621)
However, the monster is attacking creatures in adjacent squares. That suggest it is not staying inside the coffin. Therefore, the coffin is merely an obstcle, standard cover. Whenever it takes a Take Cover action, it can retreat into the coffin for greater cover.
I don't think total cover is a concept in PF2. Instead, it would be, "Your weapon cannot get through the obstacle to the target." How thick is this coffin? Could a greataxe get through the wood? Thin wood has hardness 3 and 12 hit points. (PF2 Core Rulebook, page 577)
It appeared as though the monster could attack the square directly in front of it, as well as the two squares to either side of the first. You could not hit the creature from the sides, or the back. Only from the three squares directly in front of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have ruled that the creature had cover while "inside" the coffin unless it used the "take cover" action to increase it to greater cover. I could see disallowing the fighter from attacking from directly behind the coffin, depending on the type of coffin we are talking about, especially if the opposite was also true, the wight or wraith or whatever it was was unable to attack him as well. Generally, unless reach is involved, you can attack what can attack you.
It sounds like most of the actual issues came from poor planning on the GM's part. Are the coffins full on stone sepulchers or wooden boxes somehow standing on end in the middle of a room? These are things the GM should have thought about and planned on the execution of. I can't fault the players for having issues with that sort of thing.
I remember in the long long ago having it out with a GM when an enemy he declared was in my 3rd range increment shot me accurately with a pistol. He used an open roll and hit me on a 12. I was needing 17's to hit back due to penalties using a rifle with a scope. His inability to keep a theater of the mind scenario clear really detracted from my enjoyment of the situation, especially when due to his initial description I thought that my character at the time was uniquely suited to that situation. This is a very similar situation, the GM was unclear about what you were fighting, and how the terrain effected the fight.
At the end of the day the responsibility to design a fun scenario falls on the GM after all.
I mostly agree with what others have said, some of it would be based on actually being there. The one thing I want to ask about is the misnamed creature? Was there a recall knowledge check made? I ask cause I constantly call things the wrong creature, most the time multiple wrong creatures, until a recall check is made. If successful I call it what it is, crit fail gets me to call it a wrong creature but I stay constant instead of changing it every other name. I doubt it was the case here cause there sounds like more is going on at the table.
I recall the GM repeatedly calling them wraiths and having them pop out of the walls. He then said "oops" and had them come out of the coffins instead. He kept on calling them wraiths.
I assume our cleric used Recall Knowledge (I missed the actual declaration) because the GM started reading off a bunch of information about draining claw attacks and spawn.
I believe it was some time later, a little past half the encounter that the GM said something (sorry I don't recall what) that made my brain click.
"Wait, you mean wights? Like the draugar from Skyyrim? That's totally different from wraiths! That totally changes the entire encounter dynamic!"
I mostly agree with what others have said, some of it would be based on actually being there. The one thing I want to ask about is the misnamed creature? Was there a recall knowledge check made? I ask cause I constantly call things the wrong creature, most the time multiple wrong creatures, until a recall check is made. If successful I call it what it is, crit fail gets me to call it a wrong creature but I stay constant instead of changing it every other name. I doubt it was the case here cause there sounds like more is going on at the table.I recall the GM repeatedly calling them wraiths and having them pop out of the walls. He then said "oops" and had them come out of the coffins instead. He kept on calling them wraiths.
I assume our cleric used Recall Knowledge (I missed the actual declaration) because the GM started reading off a bunch of information about draining claw attacks and spawn.
I believe it was some time later, a little past half the encounter that the GM said something (sorry I don't recall what) that made my brain click.
"Wait, you mean wights? Like the draugar from Skyyrim? That's totally different from wraiths! That totally changes the entire encounter dynamic!"
To be fair, the characters wouldn't know the difference between a wraith and a wight without a Recall Knowledge check. So your tactics shouldn't have changed because your PCs should have only had that which they could observe and the results of the Recall Knowledge check to go on.
That seems to be muddled a little bit by the GM accidentally saying they came through the wall, but if they corrected this and you weren't told they were incorporeal from the Recall Knowledge, it shouldn't matter what the undead were called.
They where specifically described as being insubstantial and ghost-like for the first half of the encounter.
I don't think the issue is what sort of cover the standing coffins gave. The real issue is what the DM wanted to accomplish and how he went about it.
My impression, from the description given here, is that the DM was somewhat confused. He seems to have confused the powers of two creatures, and gave his wight-wraiths some of the powers of both. This isn't really a problem in and of itself. Homespun creatures are a great addition to the Pathfinder bestiary.
The real question that should be asked is, did the players have fun? Was it a challenging encounter? Did the PCs manage to come out on top? As long as it wasn't a PFS game, everything else is moot.
DMs make mistakes, just like anybody. I know I've made more than my fair share. The suggestions in this thread are great stuff, but whatever the feedback given to this slightly-confused DM, if everybody had a good time, I wouldn't slam him too hard about blending the powers of wights and wraiths.
After all, I expect the players don't want to discourage this DM from ever running a game again. That wouldn't be fun for anyone, least of all the DM.
In another game today the GM admitted that he had missed a lot of sleep prior to our last game. So much so that he nearly canceled it, but one of his guests showed up before he could. That explains a lot. A little surprising though as, aside from the game mistakes and his being a little on edge, it didn't really show much at all.