Flanking through a Hard Corner

[Vandal the Unloved]

Apologies if this is obvious to everyone, but I was unclear whether you could provide flanking through a hard corner (i.e., where the creature gets cover from you). You get a flanking bonus if another opponent is threatening the creature from the opposite side (I realize my language is somewhat imprecise). If you threaten a square, you can take an attack of opportunity when the creature takes certain actions. You can't take an attack of opportunity if a creature has cover from you. I'm assuming that means you don't threaten the square. Therefore -

If I'm attacking a creature through a hard corner which gives it cover (+4 to its AC), I may be able to get a +2 if another party member is on the opposite side of the creature and is threatening it. If my other party member attacks the creature on its turn, it does not get a +2 because I can't provide flanking.

Thanks for the advice.

[maouse]

You threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack.

So if the situation is:

Fighter / Tower Shield set for full cover
Enemy
Rogue

Yes, both the Fighter and Rogue would get flanking against the enemy, even though the Fighter has cover.

If it were "around a corner" there would be no place for the person to stand between the fighter and the rogue. The only time this really applies is when there is a "thin wall" between people who can attack into the square on the opposite side of the wall and another person is flanking from the other side.

For instance, you could also have the following situation:

Fighter(s) with long spears, whips or other reach weapon.
A piece of fallen wall between them and the Enemy.
Fighter's friend flanking from the other side.

In this case, if the enemy doesn't have a reach weapon, he can only attack the friend. Also, he gets full cover from the debris (as does the fighter). So while the fighter is still providing a flanking bonus for his friend because he has reach, if he didn't he wouldn't.

Basically he is wildly swinging away over the wall, knowing his friend is attacking something (and he might know what because it might be low debris). But he can still provide flanking bonuses.

Cover and concealment only stop flanking bonus if you can't attack the person being flanked; ie. standing right next to someone who is invisible and you failed your perception check to see them/pinpoint their square. Or the GM rules that you completely can't see the person so you can't attack their square even (ie. they went around the corner and used Stealth). Or the person is behind the wall (a complete wall, with no holes) and you have no idea how far down the wall he is because you have no line of sight.

[Sniggevert]

You'd still be threatening the square, and provide flanking, even if you can't take attacks of opportunity. To threaten a square in general, you only need to be able to attack that square while "armed".

You can make attacks of opportunity when specific actions are done by a creature you threaten. That's the general rule. There is a specific rule for attacks of opportunity that removes the opportunity if the target has any cover from you, hard or soft. This specific rule ONLY talks about adjusting attacks of opportunity, and does not change whether you threaten or flank.

The general rules will still hold for actions/effects from threatening a creature, even if there is a specific rule negating a specific action.

[Sniggevert]

maouse wrote:

You threaten any square into which you can make a melee attack.

As long as you're considered armed, yes.

maouse wrote:

So if the situation is:

Fighter / Tower Shield set for full cover
Enemy
Rogue

Yes, both the Fighter and Rogue would get flanking against the enemy, even though the Fighter has cover.

I disagree with this one, as the tower shield provides total cover. You can not attack into a square that has total cover from you. Ergo, you can not make a melee attack against the enemy while set this way, so you do not threaten the enemy and the rogue would not get flanking.

[Vandal the Unloved]

Sniggevert wrote:

You'd still be threatening the square, and provide flanking, even if you can't take attacks of opportunity. To threaten a square in general, you only need to be able to attack that square while "armed".

You can make attacks of opportunity when specific actions are done by a creature you threaten. That's the general rule. There is a specific rule for attacks of opportunity that removes the opportunity if the target has any cover from you, hard or soft. This specific rule ONLY talks about adjusting attacks of opportunity, and does not change whether you threaten or flank.

The general rules will still hold for actions/effects from threatening a creature, even if there is a specific rule negating a specific action.

This is helpful thanks very much.

[maouse]

Sniggevert wrote:

I disagree with this one, as the tower shield provides total cover. You can not attack into a square that has total cover from you. Ergo, you can not make a melee attack against the enemy while set this way, so you do not threaten the enemy and the rogue would not get flanking.

Provides the one wielding it total cover... not both parties. You are correct, however the enemy would not be allowed to attack the fighter (directly; they can attack the shield). But the Fighter can still provide flanking.

And also, regarding all my wall examples, you are right, they would need to be partial cover walls (1/2 broken or with arrow slits). Full cover walls do not allow attacks to target people with full cover. Correct.

[Dolanar]

According the the rules, if the target has Cover (in this case Total Cover) you cannot attack the target, if you cannot attack the target u do not threaten the target, which means you & the player in question are not flanking the target which means neither of you receives the +2 bonus for flanking.

[Nefreet]

You can't execute a melee attack around a hard corner, so flanking and AoOs are a moot issue.

EDIT: Derp, nevermind. Was getting hard corners and total cover mixed up. That's what I get for coming to the forums first thing after I wake up.

[Jiggy]

It's interesting to note that the term "hard corner" does not appear anywhere in the Pathfinder RPG ruleset.

[Dolanar]

No it doesn't the closest interpretation of a Hard Corner I could find was in the example of fighting around a Corner, everything indicates that a corner gives total Cover & means that you cannot attack, which means you do not threaten & do not flank.

[Nefreet]

Corners give "cover" (+4 to AC) and not "total cover" (+8 to AC).

[Dolanar]

Actually Total Cover doesn't give any AC bonus, you cannot attack someone with Total Cover period. So around a corner gives melee cover, which is handled as a normal cover (the term melee cover comes from the PRD) as a side note, it only marginally doesn't count as total cover as only 1 corner would be able to be used to determine attack.

[Nefreet]

Interesting. You have to go to the section on Underwater Combat ("Attacks from Land") to see that Total Cover grants +8 to AC.

I thought I remembered reading that Total Cover applied to things like standing behind an arrow slit, but perhaps I got that from a PFS scenario.

[Dolanar]

Actually looking at that section in the PRD it says that it grants "Improved Cover" of +8, not Total Cover

PRD wrote:

Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves)

[Nefreet]

I picked a bad week to give up coffee.

[TimD]

Nefreet wrote:

I picked a bad week to give up coffee.

Giving up coffee is a bit like giving up oxygen. There's not really a good week for it.

-TimD

[Nothing]

Almost correct. You can provide and benefit from flanking through hard cover, the only restriction is that you can't make an attack of opportunity when a threatened enemy provokes one if it has cover.

[Krodjin]

Remember that the target of your melee attack still gets the +4 AC benefit from cover (so net of -2 to attack after factoring in the flank).

But Nothing brings up an interesting point with his post above ^. If the target did something to provoke an AoO from each of you, would the person who is able to make a melee attack against them get the flanking bonus?

I don't think so on account that because your ally is around the corner and can't make an AoO there is no flank.

However I don't know for sure if not being able to make an AoO is equal to "not threatening"...