| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Four basic types of cover; the last one covers (excuse the pun) the subject you're talking about:
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.
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.
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
|
Personally, for the scenario you describe I wouldn't grant the improved cover bonus if the cover granting objects were creatures.
If however, one of those creatures was an ally of mine engaged in melee with Vinny they would get the +4 for cover and I'd take a -4 for firing into melee (+8 AC effectively) unless I had some way to mitigate the firing into melee penalty, say like Precise Shot.
Personally, for the scenario you describe I wouldn't grant the improved cover bonus if the cover granting objects were creatures.
Well, no, but then the rules implicitly say that you can't stack soft cover to get improved cover ("nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check," which invalidates the bonuses of improved cover).
However, if there were two obstructions that allowed only a small visible area through which to shoot at the target (making the situation much like an arrow slit) then I'd say improved cover could be ruled.
If there were, say, two low walls of the same--or near the same--height between shooter and target, then they wouldn't stack.
|
|
^i agree. But if we had a scenario where Vinny the villain was inside a tavern, taking cover behind an overturned table and I was standing in the street firing at him through the broken window I'd just been thrown out of; I would say Vinny has improved cover from me, but I only have partial cover from him.
End of the day the GM will have to use discretion at times.
Logically, I think that soft cover does indeed stack with itself. If someone is trying to shoot you and you are the 4th in a line of people, unless there are some odd trajectory shenanigans going on, you are protected by each of those individuals between you and your attacker.
It does not, however, improve to the point of granting improved evasion.
-16, if you can't get an angle on Vinny, also potentially another -4 for shooting into melee.
Cover does not stack. You take the best of all.
Even if you feel that cover does stack, it would never be higher than Improved Cover.