|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Time to organize this question in a nerdy fashion. :\
Given: Reach weapons use the rules for ranged combat when determining cover.
Given: Due to the above, an ally 'Y' in front of your character 'X' provides a soft cover bonus of +4 AC to the enemy 'Z'.
- X - (wielding a polearm)
- Y -
- Z -
Now, within these parameters, are there any PFS legal feats, class features and/or magic items in Pathfinder that allow a wielder of a reach weapon to negate/bypass/ignore soft cover similar to what Improved Precise Shot does for a ranged weapon?
Of note, the only such feat I have heard of is Precise Swing (p.58 of the Eberron Campaign Setting) which is not available for PFS play. This wouldn't normally be an issue for me but I tend to play 3/4 BAB classes with reach weapons as a fair share of my PFS games have devolved into narrow corridors where only 1-2 melee characters can engage the enemy in front. To me this means that soft cover reduces the ability of any but a full BAB progression class from using a reach weapon effectively.
Not sure how it would play out for PFS, but i might have a loophole. A bit of a long shot tho. I've never played PFS and not real sure how strict they are on interpretation.
As you've said reach weapons use the rules for ranged combat when determining cover.
The feat Low Profile in the APG gives +1 AC vs ranged attacks and you do not provide soft cover to creatures when ranged attacks pass through your square. You have to be small tho.
So if Y is willing to be a small creature and take this feat, this might be a valid tactic.
Otherwise, Spring Attack. Move 5 or 10 ft out - attack - and move back behind cover.
There's no such feat, and i think that's deliberate. An archer firing into melee is likely to take a -4 from cover (even with the ubiquitous point blank and precise shot) in addition to the -4 for firing into melee. Reach weapon users don't suffer that.
IIRC, whomever is "closer" to the cover gains the benefit vs. ranged attacks. It's perfectly reasonable to say that some one allowing an ally to poke someone with a spear over their heads is going to be "closer" tot he spear man than the one being poked, thus negating the cover issue. IMO anyway. If you were trying to get at the guy BEHIND another adversary, then yeah, that guy could claim the cover.
|
|
There's no such feat, and i think that's deliberate. An archer firing into melee is likely to take a -4 from cover (even with the ubiquitous point blank and precise shot) in addition to the -4 for firing into melee. Reach weapon users don't suffer that.
Sorry, I need to clear up some inaccurate statements in your post.
1) It is not a -4 to your attack due to cover, it is a +4 to the enemy's AC due to soft cover.
2) Precise shot removes the -4 penalty for firing into melee.
3) Improved Precise Shot ignores the AC bonus granted by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted by anything less than total concealment.
Thus the 'deliberate' nature does not make sense, as a ranged combatant can take feats to overcome this hindrance to combat, but a reach weapon user cannot take a similar feat even though they are subject to the same rules regarding cover.
There's no such feat, and i think that's deliberate. An archer firing into melee is likely to take a -4 from cover (even with the ubiquitous point blank and precise shot) in addition to the -4 for firing into melee. Reach weapon users don't suffer that.Sorry, I need to clear up some inaccurate statements in your post.
1) It is not a -4 to your attack due to cover, it is a +4 to the enemy's AC due to soft cover.
2) Precise shot removes the -4 penalty for firing into melee.
3) Improved Precise Shot ignores the AC bonus granted by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted by anything less than total concealment.Thus the 'deliberate' nature does not make sense, as a ranged combatant can take feats to overcome this hindrance to combat, but a reach weapon user cannot take a similar feat even though they are subject to the same rules regarding cover.
Well, it might make sense.
Remember that a missile simply passes through the square containing the soft cover in an instant, while a pole-arm or other reach weapon remains in that square much longer - maybe only a second or two as the blow is landed and then the weapon is uahled back into the wielder's square.
But that is a second or two longer than it takes for an arrow to zip through that 5' square.
Maybe that's all the justification we need to allow a very skilled archer to fire through soft cover like it wasn't there without allowing a melee attacker to do the same thing with a much slower reach weapon.
Or just make a feat and then you don't have to worry about it except in PFS play.
|
Also, IIRC if enemy "Z" moves away from your ally "Y" (not using a withdraw action), you actually don't get the Attack of Opportunity either, since the enemy has soft cover.
Tactically this can be good for the players, too, as your fighter friend can stand between an enemy with a reach weapon and the party wizard to allow him to cast without having to concentrate.
Sorry, I need to clear up some inaccurate statements in your post.
You need to be pedantic you mean.
1) It is not a -4 to your attack due to cover, it is a +4 to the enemy's AC due to soft cover.
Functionally the same thing since there's no hit your ally rule.
2) Precise shot removes the -4 penalty for firing into melee.
which i mentioned
addition to the -4 for firing into melee
3) Improved Precise Shot ignores the AC bonus granted by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted by anything less than total concealment.
Relevance?
Thus the 'deliberate' nature does not make sense, as a ranged combatant can take feats to overcome this hindrance to combat, but a reach weapon user cannot take a similar feat even though they are subject to the same rules regarding cover
And Missle users suffer other problems, such as the to hit and to damage stat not being the same for missile users, attacks of opportunity for using a bow, not being able to get 1.5 strength on a bow,inability to trip or disarm, attacks of opportunity, running out of ammo, inability to make attacks of opportunity, and the aforementioned necessity of plunking not one but 2 feats (point blank and precise shot) into archer to have the exact same chance of hitting as Joe peasant with his cleaver on a stick.
So yes, i think there is a deliberate reason why reach weapons don't get any better than they already are with a feat.
In this case the bonus to AC from soft cover is only +2. Creatures provide soft cover against ranged attacks (and attacks that determine cover as if they were ranged), but creatures do not block vision. Therefore, more than half of the target creature is visible, so its cover bonus is reduced to +2 by the partial cover rule (p196).
You could (maybe) argue that if the person providing cover is small, but in the example given it's normal soft cover - +4 bns to AC.
- X - (wielding a polearm)
- Y -
- Z -
You could (maybe) argue that if the person providing cover is small, but in the example given it's normal soft cover - +4 bns to AC.
- X - (wielding a polearm)
- Y -
- Z -
I cannot find the text in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that supports that conclusion.
Troublingly, I cannot find any text in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook about how to determine line of sight. After searching my PDF, 'line of sight" is referred to 26 times, but it is never defined.
There are no rules in the book that define "line of sight," tell us what does and what does not block "line of sight," or tell us how to determine if a particular creature has "line of sight" to another particular creature, object, space, or point.
Until we have official rules regarding this, it is up to individual GMs to decide all matters relating to line of sight using whatever criteria they see fit.
Neither of our conclusions are supported by the rules at this time (unless there is errata I don't know about, which is entirely possible).
Ok, line of effect means a unobstructed line between you and the target. A hole of 1ft. in a wall means you have line of effect through the hole.
Line of sight is where you have a line of effect to the target but cannot see them, fog etc.
This is how it works (Core p.195):
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).
also, on the page and description you quoted it explains it pretty well, i think:
Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM’s discretion.
In the example there's no partial cover because the creature is square in the way.
If Z was here:
-----X(wielding a polearm)
-----Y
-------Z
that would be partial cover.
Ok, line of effect means a unobstructed line between you and the target. A hole of 1ft. in a wall means you have line of effect through the hole.
This is correct (paraphrased from the Core Rulebook p215), but it is insufficient for a thorough definition.
Where does the line of effect start? The center of the square you occupy? At one of the corners of that square? Any point within that square?
A point of origin for an Area spell or a spread Effect must be a grid intersection. But what if you need line of effect to a target or a space? Where does the line of effect end? The center of the square the target occupies? The actual position of the target inside its square as determined by the GM? A corner of that square? Any point within that square?
The Core Rulebook does not answer these questions. Neither of us can reach an official, rules-as-written conclusion about line of sight. We simply don't have the information we need to reach such a conclusion.
Line of sight is where you have a line of effect to the target but cannot see them, fog etc.
Given the context, I believe you meant "Line of sight is where you have line of effect to the target and can see them, no fog, darkness, etc."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where does the line of effect start? The center of the square you occupy? At one of the corners of that square? Any point within that square?
dude, i just explained that.
as per my post:
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square.
A point of origin for an Area spell or a spread Effect must be a grid intersection. But what if you need line of effect to a target or a space? Where does the line of effect end? The center of the square the target occupies? The actual position of the target inside its square as determined by the GM? A corner of that square? Any point within that 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).
The Core Rulebook does not answer these questions. Neither of us can reach an official, rules-as-written conclusion about line of sight. We simply don't have the information we need to reach such a conclusion.
Yes it does. And we can. I just showed you.
Please give an example of how this doesn't make sense and i'll try to explain it again, cuz i'm not understanding the problem.
Line of sight is where you have a line of effect to the target but cannot see them, fog etc.Given the context, I believe you meant "Line of sight is where you have line of effect to the target and can see them, no fog, darkness, etc."
Too true. m'bad.
There is no indication in the text that one is supposed to determine line of sight or line of effect the same way that one determines whether a target has cover from a ranged attack. You are arguing from you own assumption.
The essential question we must answer to determine whether the target gets a +4 cover bonus or a +2 cover bonus is this: to what extent do creatures in combat block line of sight?
My answer, and it is not anymore official than your answer, is that creatures in combat do not significantly block line of sight.
Here is my reasoning.
1) A creature occupies its square but does not fill it. With the exception of creatures such as gelatinous cubes, the dimensions of most creatures mean that most of the square they occupy in combat is, in fact, empty space.
2) The soft cover provided by other creatures does not allow you to make a Stealth check. Keep in mind that if you have cover from an obstacle, even if it is just partial cover, you can make a Stealth check. This indicates to me that a creature beyond another intervening creature is even more visible than a creature behind an obstacle where more than half of that creature is visible.
3) Putting 1 and 2 together, I conclude that creatures in combat do not significantly block line of sight.
4) I further conclude that "providing cover" and "blocking line of sight" are two different qualities. Obstacles such as stone walls have both qualities, while creatures only have the provide-cover quality.
5) Given that creatures in combat do provide cover but do not significantly block visibility, I conclude that if you make a ranged attack (or another attack that determines cover as if it were a ranged attack) against a target creature directly on the opposite side of an intervening creature, the target creature only gets partial soft cover--+2 to AC, no bonus to Reflex saves.
The rule for interposed creatures is specific and clear: +4 to AC, no bonus to Reflex saves. If "soft cover" was automatically supposed to be adjusted by the rule for partial cover, the book would say so. Partial cover is available for special circumstances as adjudicated by the GM, not a modification for soft cover (where the rule is specifically given).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The rule for interposed creatures is specific and clear: +4 to AC, no bonus to Reflex saves. If "soft cover" was automatically supposed to be adjusted by the rule for partial cover, the book would say so. Partial cover is available for special circumstances as adjudicated by the GM, not a modification for soft cover (where the rule is specifically given).
I am afraid it only talks about ranged weapons and not reach weapons. It's still unclear what penalties you get to attack an enemy 10 ft. away with an halberd if there's already an enemy in front of you. Nowehere in the PRD is that specified. I would personally think it's impossible to use a whip against an enemy 10 ft away when you have a dual sword wielding elf in front of you already attaching that enemy, swirling blades everywhere. Yet by RAW, nothing is said but the closest thing is that +4 AC.
It's still unclear what penalties you get to attack an enemy 10 ft. away with an halberd if there's already an enemy in front of you. Nowehere in the PRD is that specified. I would personally think it's impossible to use a whip against an enemy 10 ft away when you have a dual sword wielding elf in front of you already attaching that enemy, swirling blades everywhere. Yet by RAW, nothing is said but the closest thing is that +4 AC.
I am afraid it only talks about ranged weapons and not reach weapons.
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.
So there's no difference between the two.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
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).
So the same rules apply to a halberd as an arrow. If its talking about a ranged weapon it is also talking about a reach weapon. Cover is cover, whether you have a longbow or a long spear. So yes, the mooks in front of you are blocking your ability to take attack of opportunity against the mooks milling around in the backfield.
And just in case someone wants to try the "soft cover is not cover" argument:
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#melee-attacks
Yep you're right, I found the same line right after I wrote this post. Things are pretty clear now (not that I find it credible by any means).
1) It is not a -4 to your attack due to cover, it is a +4 to the enemy's AC due to soft cover.
Functionally the same thing since there's no hit your ally rule.
It matters if you're making a combat maneuver. The +4 AC will not apply to the target's CMD, but an attack penalty would affect your CMB.
1) It is not a -4 to your attack due to cover, it is a +4 to the enemy's AC due to soft cover.
Functionally the same thing since there's no hit your ally rule.
It matters if you're making a combat maneuver. The +4 AC will not apply to the target's CMD, but an attack penalty would affect your CMB.
Right, for all those archery based combat maneuvers...
1) It is not a -4 to your attack due to cover, it is a +4 to the enemy's AC due to soft cover.
Functionally the same thing since there's no hit your ally rule.
It matters if you're making a combat maneuver. The +4 AC will not apply to the target's CMD, but an attack penalty would affect your CMB.
Right, for all those archery based combat maneuvers...
The point being that if soft cover applied a -4 to your attack roll, CMB manuvers with melee reach weapons would be affected. Because it's a bonus to the opponent's AC however, they're not.
I would count the circumstance of having soft cover as a circumstance bonus to AC which does applies to CMD. Circumstance bonuses are not really called out as such by the rules (like Morale or Enhancement bonuses are), you just have to recognize that it is a ´situational´ bonus... i.e. such as having cover between your location and your enemy.