How are we going to handle reporting? Is one person in charge, or will we each report the games we run?
|
Is there a rule that prevents large creature from having cover due to medium creatures? I would rule that as partial cover, which is still a +2 to its AC. Or if you moved down a few spaces, you would have had a clear shot, the GM encouraged.
I have never found such a rule, directly, but I've always thought there should be one. What I do is try to apply the same 2d rule in 3d. That is, if you can draw a line from any corner of the archer's cube to all four corners of half of the target's cube without passing through an occupied cube, then it's only partial cover. (I also usually figure if it's a Huge creature, there's no cover.) Since you can take one of the top corners, that means that a medium creature will always only provide partial cover for ranged attacks against a large creature.
|
Here are the rules that would apply to the Minotaur.
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.
I thought there were rules where when the difference in size was great enough you ignored the smaller creature, but I can't find that at the moment.
But that is specific to melee attacks.
The difference in size rule relates to the penalty for shooting into melee, which actually means that when the minotaur was fighting Janira, the penalty was only -2.
Rob, I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me? I agree that it would be partial cover since less than half of the creature is covered by the smaller creature.
|
I'd like to further explain the way I'm used to seeing it interpreted, but feel free to skip the explanation if you aren't curious or don't particularly like this kind of discussion. :)
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).
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.
Given that PF actually works with cubes* (but inexplicably insists on calling them squares), and a large creature's space looks like this:
[code]
+----+----+
/ / /|
+----+----+ |
/ / /| +
+----+----+ |/|
| | | + |
| | |/| +
+----+----+ |/
| | | +
| | |/
+----+----+
[/code]
(a 10x10 cube), and we've seen that an attacker determining cover against a large (or larger) creature can "pick any of the [cubes] it occupies to determine if it has cover against [him]"...
Thus, the attacker can choose a top corner of his own [cube] and compare it to all of the corners of a top [cube] occupied by the large (or larger) creature to determine cover, and a medium creature standing on the ground will not obstruct any of the "lines".
*Pretty easy to show this based on the given rules for cover around corners — if PF only cared about squares, you could just use a vertical square and be able to shoot someone around a corner with no cover.
I totally don't mind the discussion!
Is there a rule that says that you get to choose the square to determine cover when making a ranged attack? I saw the portion of the CRB that Bret quoted, but it's pretty specific to melee attacks. So if you were hitting the minotaur with a reach weapon from behind a low wall, I would agree with no cover.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, just didn't want it to be taken as an argument — partial cover is, after all, "at the GM's discretion". :)
Interesting take — you're right that it does call out melee attacks. Then again, the Cover rules also specify that reach weapons get treated as ranged weapons for purposes of cover.
I think the view I described above assumes that if a large(r) creature wouldn't have cover against a melee attacker due to the "big creatures" rule, it shouldn't have cover against a ranged attacker either. On the other hand, we know that creatures don't generally take up their full cubic area, so a DM ruling that partial cover applies doesn't seem unreasonable.
On the other other hand, if we take the ranged cover rule above and assume that a larger creature's entire cube is its "square", and we look at the front-edge corner of the attacker's cube, the geometry seems* to show that provided the attacker is more than 20' (15+5) away from the large creature, none of the lines should pass through the interposing medium creature's cube... at least, if I'm looking at this correctly.
X: ranged attacker
Y: medium creature
Z: large creature
Side View:
[code]
A:
ZZ
X___YZZ
B:
ZZ
XYZZ
[/code]
Facing the large creature:
[code]
ZZ
XZ
[/code]
Top-down:
[code]
A:
ZZ
X YZZ
B:
ZZ
XYZZ
[/code]
Unless I'm looking at this wrong (which is entirely possible!), the ranged attacker above (in case A) could choose his front-right-bottom corner, and none of the lines we draw would pass through Y's cube. (In case B, they would pass through Y's cube.)
Now I'd better go prep for that meeting I need to attend...
*Yeah, I broke out the graph paper...
Another thought on reporting. Our next game (possibly our next two) are going to be in PBP Gameday VI. Which means that the reporting will fall into the PBP Gameday VI number.
Is there anyone here who isn't already GMing something for PbP Gameday? If so, you might want to think about picking up Glass River Rescue for the sweet Samsaran race GM boon! I see that Dennis will be our GM for our next session, Stolen Heir!
I GMed that once, long ago. Looking forward to meeting Galtan mercenaries as a player.
Hmm
In my mind, if the text specifies melee attacks, then it specifically does not apply to ranged attacks, or it would simply say attacks.
You have an interesting point that it is possible to place a medium creature in front of a large creature so that the line rule for determining cover is satisfied. In the case at hand here, the creature providing cover was much closer to the attacker, so it wouldn't apply,
but certainly could come up!
I suppose in the end, this is just one of those dreaded "table variation" topics!
|
|
I can probably pick up the other Gameday scenario — from the spreadsheet it looks like Dennis is taking Glass River Rescue, so I went ahead and signed up for Stolen Heir. I don't have a copy of it... Hmm, are you the one I talk to about that? :)
Anyway, what's to dread about table variation, provided you have a reasonable DM? :)
Oladan, register yourself up for a table of that at the PBP Gameday Games site marked in my header. Mark it both Core and full. Do that now, and I can submit you for the second round of scenario support.
My deadline for that is September 4th -- hence the "do it now!" Stolen Heir is a good scenario for a starter GM.
"Die, 'ounds of the Aristocracy!"
Hugs
Hmm
|
I would suggest we all use the same event number.
I agree with this approach. As to the question of tall creatures not having cover from smaller ones, that's how I've always played it, unless there's some extenuating circumstance.
I didn't know there was a samsaran boon for GM'ing Gameday, that's great!
And finally, because I always say about PbP that you don't get the same immediate feedback you get at a table (laughter, groans, whatever), I want to take a moment to say how much I'm enjoying Kate's sense of humor in this game. I really appreciate the funny ways monsters have been listed in the initiative tracker and other subtle little jokes she weaves in!
|
|
But that is specific to melee attacks.
The difference in size rule relates to the penalty for shooting into melee, which actually means that when the minotaur was fighting Janira, the penalty was only -2.
Rob, I can't tell if you're disagreeing with me? I agree that it would be partial cover since less than half of the creature is covered by the smaller creature.
I think I was trying to agree... but sometimes I'm not even sure what *I'm* saying....
|
|
I would suggest we all use the same event number.I agree with this approach. As to the question of tall creatures not having cover from smaller ones, that's how I've always played it, unless there's some extenuating circumstance.
I didn't know there was a samsaran boon for GM'ing Gameday, that's great!
And finally, because I always say about PbP that you don't get the same immediate feedback you get at a table (laughter, groans, whatever), I want to take a moment to say how much I'm enjoying Kate's sense of humor in this game. I really appreciate the funny ways monsters have been listed in the initiative tracker and other subtle little jokes she weaves in!
Yes, seconded.
And re: one of Rees' spoilers above: it's a tragedy, a tragedy, I tell you, that this forum doesn't have a [pre] or [code] tag or anything like that.
|
|
From the display perspective, it is the same as Performated ([pre]), prevents it from changing the spacing. Typically will use a fixed width font and never removes spaces.
In some cases, there are tools that can pull [code] section out and patch them into something else -- usually an editor. The ability there varies with both client and server.
|
|
From the display perspective, it is the same as Performated ([pre]), prevents it from changing the spacing. Typically will use a fixed width font and never removes spaces.
In some cases, there are tools that can pull [code] section out and patch them into something else -- usually an editor. The ability there varies with both client and server.
Thanks. I installed the plugin, and really like the highlighted markers showing where I need to post, but I was having trouble seeing what the code tag was for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Backtracking to before the rules discussion, thank you for the kind words! I definitely have a lot to learn about how to GM for play-by-post, but it is a fun medium.
I have no problem with people editing the markers. I apologize for switching Nico around; I have a separate set of slides that is GM-facing, and I was pulling the icons from there, not noticing that the icon was different in the player slides. I should really put some ranks in Perception.
Hey Hmm, if I don't need scenario support for Glass River Rescue, should I still post it to the list of gameday sessions?
I'm not HMM, but I can think of at least one reason to post it. Boon support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all the sessions have been reported, but Dennis just earned his third star! Yay!
Congrats, Dennis!
Since we are wrapping up, could I please get PFS numbers, factions, and day job rolls from everyone?
Also, does anyone want to volunteer to create the event?
|
|
Not sure why Garif went with the d10 roll - but he maxed it out! I'll roll for him, see if he does any worse.
I added everyone in the group as designated reporters, so we should all be able to report games. And I'm fine with just rolling into the next scenario - we've got to keep on this if we're going to get through all of Season 5 and then some. We should keep in mind that we talked about possibly doing some of the games by VTT as well.
Sorry to hear you're sick, Hmm.