There's about a bazillion different threads floating around right now talking about a situation involving a tent, an arrow, a shadow, and a casting of true strike. Everyone is saying that the guy in the tent has concealment. I'd rule this, too. But it's a moot point. As ArchLich so graciously posted in another thread, true strike ignores concealment. Look it up.
So, the end result is that the attack takes place with no penalty, no miss chance, but rather gains the full benefit of the +20 insight bonus to hit.
I hereby rename the guy in the tent to Ouchy McPinCushion.
No, we should name him 'Arrow Quiver'!
|
No.
No.
No.
You're forgeting something important, Saern. According to RAW, any NPC designated as "guy in tent" automatically has 23% concealment (must be rolled on d20), caster level Uber, which is, as you all know, big enough to outdo a 1st level spell. Therefore, any said "guy in tent" must first have mashed potatoes with his gravy.
Moreover, this particular "guy in tent" -- according to Monte Cook -- has the two prerequisites, Deflect Arrow and Combat Reflexes, to gain the feet, "Ozzie Osbourne's Arrow Deflection" -- so he automatically deflects as many arrows per round as his Dex Bonus, which is -2 (his DEX is 7).
So, according to RAW, which is the final authority in the universe (greater even than the guy from Plan 9 from Outer Space) spiders in an arctic campaign setting indicate the presence of homebrew drow elves but only ones with pink elephants and jack fruit.
-W. E. Ray
I disagree; he has total cover, not concealment. Sure, it's possible to shoot through it, but it's possible to shoot through a wooden wall too. There is no line of effect through the wall of the tent.
My turn to disagree. There is a difference between cover, a solid physical object which stands between an attacker and his target but does not otherwise obscure his location (that part which can be seen, which must exist for it not to be considered total cover); and concealment, which is a relatively insubstantial barrier that simply makes pinpointing the target's location difficult. This seems to clearly be the latter to me. Arguments about the density of a tent's fabric aside (since, one, we don't know the actual nature of this tent's fabric, and two, it probably doesn't matter all that much because D&D isn't a reality simulation); those considerations aside, the tent is not a substantial barrier. Further, there is line of effect to the target; the shadow indicates the location. Now, I will cave a bit to CEBrown's statement that it could be considered a displacement effect* (in which case, I do not believe true strike will work) since the exact position is still unknown; but you still have line of effect to a target under the effects of concealment, so I must say that I feel the archer has line of effect in this case.
*Though I still think this falls under concealment, I acknowledge it's a fine and hard to pinpoint line, so a case can be made either way.
What's the Hardness and Hp of the tent? Canvas isn't listed in the PHB for hardness, but rope is, IIRC. Rope has Hardness 0 and 2 Hp per inch. How thick is the tent wall? Certainly less than an inch. I'd rule that as long as the damage was more than 1, the guy gets hit.
Of course that's my hard and fast ruling, YMMV.
|
Concealment, in itself, is not a barrier. It is a visual effect involving shadow, camoflage, etc. The ruling here should be determined by each GM on whether or not a tent wall is a barrier. If yes, the target should have cover that blocks line of effect. If no, pincushion.
IMHO, I would rule the tent wall a barrier, though a very temporary one in the case of large thrown projectiles or fiery ones.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The canonical example the Wiards staff used when discussing conealmeant was several dozen yards of pea-soup fog. Robin Hood, the best archer in the world, might miss someone in pea-soup fog. That's concealment.
The tent wall seems to obscure sight as much as complete darkness or a pea-soup fog. And True Strike negates that miss chance, as well as providing a +20 insight bonus.
The objections seem to stem from the kind of concealment (invisibility or displacement or somesuch) or argue that it doesn't make sense to be able to ignore concealment effects.
It's magic, folks.
Now, having said all that, of course any DM has the right to nerf any given spell in her campaign. In this case, the rogue / ranger's player knew about the DM's ruling ahead of the session. I think we can argue the rules-as-written all we please, and there are good reasons to do so, but we should also allow that, instead of a "dumb DM", this may be a case of "a DM making a rules change the player doesn't like".
I don't think that they're aiming at the shadow, just trying to figure out where the target is with the shadow.
|
There is a difference between cover, a solid physical object which stands between an attacker and his target but does not otherwise obscure his location (that part which can be seen, which must exist for it not to be considered total cover); and concealment, which is a relatively insubstantial barrier that simply makes pinpointing the target's location difficult. This seems to clearly be the latter to me.
I'm sure you'll not be surprised to find that I disagree with your disagreement. 8-)
If you want to know why, I suggest you try walking through the side of a tent, sometime. It's not an insubstantial barrier.
I would also not allow a magic missile to hit someone in this situation. And a fireball would detonate on the fabric. (In that last case, it's unlikely to matter much to the person inside, but there you go.)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
CEBrown, I really like the way you analyze the situation, but I disagree with your conclusions.
Now here's what may be the most important question - what level is True Strike?
If it's above third level, then it should negate the miss chance, due to the sheer power of the spell.
The level is germaine to the extent that you may want to nerf the rules-as-written to bring the spell in line with your feel for what 1st Level spells do. If, somehow, Fireball were put into the official rules as a 2nd Level spell, you could argue that it shouldn't be, and that you were going to change the rules to conform better to your sense of fairness, but that wouldn't change the rules.
However, I still maintain that what's being targeted is the shadow, not the person - as such, the attacker may or may not be firing at the intended target (hence the miss chance applying).
Yes, they have a True Strike on the shadow, but there's only a chance that the shadow occupies the exact same space as the target...
The shadow is irrelevant. Extinguish the lantern and plunge the tent into darkness. Total concealment. True Strike is still providing +20 to hit, and eliminates the miss chance due to concealment.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I suggest you try walking through the side of a tent, sometime. It's not an insubstantial barrier.
I would also not allow a magic missile to hit someone in this situation. And a fireball would detonate on the fabric. (In that last case, it's unlikely to matter much to the person inside, but there you go.)
Doug, I think that's a fine interpretation of the situation.
I don't necessarily agree with it, because (just as a net can provide a barrier for a fish but not water) a tent wall can provide cover for some things (rain, a person walking) and not others (arrows, x-rays). Does it provide cover for the attacking weapon? I'd argue no, but I can see your point.
And I agree that Magic Missile would be foiled.
By the way, do you believe that Magic Missile can hit a person entangled in a Web spell, even though the spell is serving as a barrier to some things?
...Does it provide cover for the attacking weapon? I'd argue no, but I can see your point...
I'd say that a tent would provide minimum cover. The tent would slow the arrow down a bit, but the tent isn't thick enough to stop the arrow completely.
You know, I think in this situation that I would have just set the tent on fire and aimed at the doorway, shooting at anything and anyone who stepped through.
An excellent idea. I'll have to try it next time.
You know, I think in this situation that I would have just set the tent on fire and aimed at the doorway, shooting at anything and anyone who stepped through.
I summon Jeremy Mac Donald to explain why this is an impossibility! Jeremy Mac Donald, hear my call!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The only ambiguity here is whether the tent provides concealment or cover. That's a factual matter, and something the DM determines, and there can be no RAW answer to this question. I can imagine the tent being a thick canvas that will cause so much damage to the arrow and its momentum that the attack won't penetrate. I can also imagine a thin cloth tent that is easily rent, in which case it clearly provides only concealment.
The aiming at the shadow issue is irrelevant. There is no difference in the RAW between concealment due to shadows and concealment due to displacement. True Sight ignores concealment, ergo, it works even on displacement effects.
The "spirit" of the rules is just DM's fiat and not a reasonable grounds for accepting an interpretation outside that DM's table. To me, the "spirit" of the rules is that divination spells are really good at finding things. True Sight is a divination spell, so it can find the target you want to aim at, even in the dark, or in the rain, or on a train, or with a goat, or on a boat. It can find the target here or there, it can find the target anywhere. Once you're down to arguing the "spirit" of the rules, all your doing is saying "I don't like what the rules actually say, so I'm going to ignore them." I'm happy that works at the table, but it's not the right answer to the actual question presented.
Luckily, we don't have to rely on the "spirit" of the rules; they are clear. True Sight ignores concealment. The only question is whether the tent provides concealment or cover and the RAW won't answer that question.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thus the simple compromise of:
Allow the shot to go off with the To Hit bonus as the spell specifies.
Allow the tent/shadow combination to, essentially deflect the attack with a Miss chance; this gives it a chance to act as Cover (blocking the shot) or Concealment (having no effect) based on a random role, since there are no rules for shooting "through" objects.
The shadow has nothing to do with it. The tent is the only object relevant to the analysis. It may well be that it's thick enough to have some effect, but that is modeled in D&D by armor and cover, so you would just give it a cover bonus based on the thickness. That's the middle ground. Concealment has nothing to do with it whatsoever. True Sight ignores concealment; title of thread; end of story.
|
Concealment has nothing to do with it whatsoever. True Sight ignores concealment; title of thread; end of story.
I would have to disagree. Not with the fact that true strike ignores concealment, that's in the spell description, but with the idea that "true strike ignores concealment" means that concealment has nothing to do with it.
When I (and my gaming group) read "ignores concealment," I take that to mean "negates XX% miss chance." As far as I know, and I could be wrong, that is the standard interpretation of that phrase.
However, a target with total concealment can't be attacked.
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
That target's square can be attacked, but the attacker has to know which square, or just pick a square and hope it's the right one.
If true strike ignores the "You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment" rule, then the attacker can attack targets whose exact location is unknown.
In that case, you don't even need the shadow. If you know there is someone in the tent, cast true strike and attack him.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
True Sight says:
Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
If you can show me where total concealment is carved out from that, more power to you. True Strike lets you hit invisible opponents. There is nothing in the spell about it not working if the target has total concealment.
Edit: About the best I can say is that if you parse out the invisibility effect, it says:
"An invisible creature's location cannot be pinpointed by visual means, including darkvision. It has total concealment; even if an attacker correctly guesses the invisible creature's location, the attacker has a 50% miss chance in combat."
So, I suppose you would still need to pinpoint the target because all True Sight lets you do is ignore concealment. It does not pinpoint the target.
|
|
True Sight says:
Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
If you can show me where total concealment is carved out from that, more power to you. True Strike lets you hit invisible opponents. There is nothing in the spell about it not working if the target has total concealment.
True stike let's you ignore the miss chance against invisible opponents. It doesn't tell you what square the invisible opponent is in.
To me, true strike says, "When you attack a target with concealment, don't roll the miss chance." But I can't attack a target with total concealment. I can attack its square, and I would expect the miss chance negation to apply. But what if I pick the wrong square?
In this situation, I think the total concealment issue is important because it means that the attacker has to pick a square and hope the target is in it. If he is, no miss chance. If he isn't, oops.
EDIT: Your edit says the same thing as my post.
Were I DMing that situation, this is how I would rule it. If the interior of the tent is in shadow and the character is targeting a shape within the shadows, it would be concealment. If the tent was lit and the character was targeting a source of a shadow, I would rule the tent is cover. I would then give the target a +8 cover bonus to AC and give the tent section 4 hp (the same as silk rope). If the attack hits and the damage is higher than the tent's HP it goes through and strikes the source of the shadow, otherwise it sticks into the tent.
This situation is not one that can be resolved strictly by RAW. It requires for the DM to rule if the tent is cover (blocking the source of the shadow) or concealment (creating a shadowy environment). The original thread that started this was never clear on that point.
My ruling for the tent as cover would basically treat it as improved soft cover (as per the RAW), and only because true strike was being used. Without it, I would either rule the shot could not hit, or randomly determine the target.
|
|
True Strike lets you hit invisible opponents. There is nothing in the spell about it not working if the target has total concealment.
But from Ungoded's SRD reference above, true strike only allows your to ignore total concealment given that you attack the correct square. If you don't know what square an invisible opponenet is in, you stil can't hit him. Otherwise, treu strike would be a free pass anytime anyone near you was invisible. True strike doens't give you the ability to see invisible opponents, you still need a spot or listen (or maybe scent) to pinpoint the square. Once the square is pinpointed, then you're golden (just don't roll a 1).
-Skeld
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
True stike let's you ignore the miss chance against invisible opponents. It doesn't tell you what square the invisible opponent is in.To me, true strike says, "When you attack a target with concealment, don't roll the miss chance." But I can't attack a target with total concealment. I can attack its square, and I would expect the miss chance negation to apply. But what if I pick the wrong square?
In this situation, I think the total concealment issue is important because it means that the attacker has to pick a square and hope the target is in it. If he is, no miss chance. If he isn't, oops.
I agree. You're still not rolling a concealment chance though, you're just picking a target square blindly. Concealment is irrelevant to the attack roll, which was my point. You won't roll concealment with True Strike, regardless of whether its caused by displacement or clouds or tent canvas.
So the question, for the "tent = concealment, not cover" camp, is:
How much information does the visible shadow give regarding that actual location of the target?
How big is the tent?
AndEven with a flickering large light source: Fairly easy to identify the 5 foot "square" the target is in.
If the target has a consistent "hard" shadow: It is easy to identify the target.
Both examples may require some observation for you to be sure of the target's location.
The hardest possible situation (within reason) would be a moving light source with a moving target in a large tent where they are far away from the tent cloth on any side.
Edit: If it is a normal camping tent you could fire blindly into it and have a 1/2 or 1/4 chance of succeeding.
|
|
How much information does the visible shadow give regarding that actual location of the target?
I'd be inclined to map out the outline of the tent on the map and ask the player which square they want to attack. Otherwise, this would be just like spotting an invisible opponent, with maybe a +2 bonus for the shadow. Listen checks would also be valid, although the shadow would grant no bonus to those.
-Skeld
|
|
Does the PC have line of sight to the target?
-i duno i'm not in the gaming group, but it seems the player is saying he can see the target and the shadow; which is displaced from the BBEG position.
Does the tent provide cover?
-if so the tent needs to penetrate a hardness of 0 and 2hps/inch of cloth(assuming tent is similar to cloth-since leather seems a bit much and I am not aware of any hardness ratings for canvas)
If I had x-ray vision and I see a BBEG through a stone wall, it still means he has a stone wall to go through. I guess its really up to the DM to say if the tent is too thick or not....
I would allow the shot with True Strike, but just take 2 points of damage off the arrow cuz it used those two points to cut through the tent....
|
|
Total Concealment:
You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies.
That is, your target is the square, not the opponent. You can't attack the opponent.
True Strike (relevant part):
Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
Your target is the square, so you ignore any miss chance that applies to you striking the square. (This could be caused by dim light, for example.)
Once you determine that you have hit the square, only then do you determine whether you have hit the opponent who is in that square. True strike does not negate that miss chance, as it is not a miss chance caused by concealment of your target, which is the square, not the opponent. You are, of course, free to rule otherwise, but that's the way I parse the rules.
In this situation, I think the total concealment issue is important because it means that the attacker has to pick a square and hope the target is in it. If he is, no miss chance. If he isn't, oops.
I agree with this interpretation.
Copy and pasted from here.
Read. From SRD:
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
True Strike
Divination
Level: Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: See text
You gain temporary, intuitive insight into the immediate future during your next attack. Your next single attack roll (if it is made before the end of the next round) gains a +20 insight bonus. Additionally, you are not affected by the miss chance that applies to attackers trying to strike a concealed target.
Focus
A small wooden replica of an archery target.
In Conclusion
So, if the person can target the square the person occupies (because of their shadow being projected on a thin cloth barrier) then they can hit the person with no chance of missing (besides a bad roll with their BAB normal dex modifiers, weapons modifiers, no range modifiers and a +20 to hit from true strike added to said roll). Easy to understand in black and white.
Edit: Oh and by the way, if the tent was thick enough to count as cover not concealment then you wouldn't be able to see a shadow projected from the inside.
|
|
In Conclusion
So, if the person can target the square the person occupies (because of their shadow being projected on a thin cloth barrier) then they can hit the person with no chance of missing (besides a bad roll with their BAB normal dex modifiers, weapons modifiers, no range modifiers and a +20 to hit from true strike added to said roll). Easy to understand in black and white.
Disagree, for the reasons noted above.
Edit: Oh and by the way, if the tent was thick enough to count as cover not concealment then you wouldn't be able to see a shadow projected from the inside.
Really? I take it you've never seen a window? (Well, I mean they're clear, and all, so I suppose....) 8-)
Optical thickness has only a casual relationship to penetrability. And decent-quality canvas can be remarkably difficult to cut.
As Sebastian noted, the decision of whether this should be cover or concealment is a GM call. While I consider this an easy case, I included my previous comment for completeness. Total concealment negates most of the advantage of the last clause of the True Strike spell, because it prevents you from attacking the concealed opponent. (That would be the "You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment...." part of the description of total concealment, in case you were wondering.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Your target is the square, so you ignore any miss chance that applies to you striking the square. (This could be caused by dim light, for example.)
But if your target is the square, and you hit the square, but then it turns out that you hit the guy in the square, didn't you miss the square? ;-)
|
|
But if your target is the square, and you hit the square, but then it turns out that you hit the guy in the square, didn't you miss the square? ;-)
No way. The square, in a physical sense (to the extent that it exists at all in a physical sense, being a metaphysical construct adopted for the purposes of the game*) encompasses, no contains the so-called "guy in the square".
Which is, like, cosmic and all.
Duuuude!
8-)
* That is, to quote Alfred Korzybski, "The map is not the territory."
I agree with Archlich... Total Concealment says you can't attack the opponent, but you can attack their square with a miss chance. True Strike negates that miss chance.
And though I'm not an expert on the subject, cutting a canvas and piercing one with an arrow are two entirely different things...
Back when I used to target shoot on the farm, my compound bow would punch through my target, the entire bail of hay behind it, and still have enough force to imbed itself into the plywood sheet I had behind that. And I only had a 50 lb pull on it then...
A tent canvas, probably no more than 2-3 mm thick (if that), isn't going to stop or reroute an arrow when a carboard target and a 4' bail of hay barely did.
Oh, and you have to consider the arrowheads used. I was using target heads, which are about as sharp as a capped pen. I'll take a leap and assume that the archer in this case is actually using a bodkin or broadhead. That tent might as well not even be there...
I see no argument here.
Mr. Ouchy McPinCushion, have at thee!
-Kurocyn
Edit: Oh and by the way, if the tent was thick enough to count as cover not concealment then you wouldn't be able to see a shadow projected from the inside.Really? I take it you've never seen a window? (Well, I mean they're clear, and all, so I suppose....) 8-)
Optical thickness has only a casual relationship to penetrability. And decent-quality canvas can be remarkably difficult to cut.
Way to be a smart ass. When is the last time you have encountered canvas that has the hardness of steel? (Which it may but assuming it to be without any indication is... weird.)
As Sebastian noted, the decision of whether this should be cover or concealment is a GM call. While I consider this an easy case, I included my previous comment for completeness. Total concealment negates most of the advantage of the last clause of the True Strike spell, because it prevents you from attacking the concealed opponent. (That would be the "You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment...." part of the description of total concealment, in case you were wondering.)
Would you quit partially quoting to skew the issue?
Full Entry:
Concealment
To determine whether your target has concealment 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 provides concealment, the target has concealment.
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks.
In addition, some magical effects provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.
Concealment Miss Chance
Concealment gives the subject of a successful attack a 20% chance that the attacker missed because of the concealment. If the attacker hits, the defender must make a miss chance percentile roll to avoid being struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.
Concealment and Hide Checks
You can use concealment to make a Hide check. Without concealment, you usually need cover to make a Hide check.
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.
Ignoring Concealment
Concealment isn’t always effective. A shadowy area or darkness doesn’t provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance with the same light source than other characters. Although invisibility provides total concealment, sighted opponents may still make Spot checks to notice the location of an invisible character. An invisible character gains a +20 bonus on Hide checks if moving, or a +40 bonus on Hide checks when not moving (even though opponents can’t see you, they might be able to figure out where you are from other visual clues).
Varying Degrees of Concealment
Certain situations may provide more or less than typical concealment, and modify the miss chance accordingly.
The important part:
Total Concealment
If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
This means that if you target "their square" and get by the 50% chance to miss that you actually hit the target (if your attack roll is equal to or greater then their AC).
It is simple logic to follow.
(A) Tent offers concealment
(B) True strike adds +20 to hit and negates concealment miss chance.
(C) The person can see a shadow which helps them locate the persons general area (their “square”)
(D) Tent offers cover, which foils attack
Now if A, B and C are true the person can be targeted with a +20 bonus to hit.
If D is also true they can not hit a person in the tent. If D is true then a tower shield made of tent canvas can protect against arrows. (I don't think so.) Also all shields and barricades against arrows can now be made of simple tent canvas.
So my previous post still stands as true.
In Conclusion
So, if the person can target the square the person occupies (because of their shadow being projected on a thin cloth barrier) then they can hit the person with no chance of missing (besides a bad roll with their BAB normal dex modifiers, weapons modifiers, no range modifiers and a +20 to hit from true strike added to said roll). Easy to understand, it is in black and white.
|
|
Way to be a smart ass. When is the last time you have encountered canvas that has the hardness of steel? (Which it may but assuming it to be without any indication is... wierd.)
The technical term for that logical fallacy is "strawman argumentation". When is the last time you encountered wood that has "the hardness of steel"? Is "the hardness of steel" a necessary precondition for counting as cover? I never said that; would you like to take that position? Until you do, you might wish to respond to what I actually wrote, which is a refutation of your point that if you can see a shadow on it, it must only count as concealment.
Would you quite partially quoting to skew the issue?
I assume you mean "quit"? I don't see the need, since you just quoted the whole thing (twice, now). I merely pointed out a sentence that moots your entire argument. Also twice, now.
Way to be a smart ass. When is the last time you have encountered canvas that has the hardness of steel? (Which it may but assuming it to be without any indication is... weird.)The technical term for that logical fallacy is "strawman argumentation". When is the last time you encountered wood that has "the hardness of steel"? Is "the hardness of steel" a necessary precondition for counting as cover? I never said that; would you like to take that position? Until you do, you might wish to respond to what I actually wrote, which is a refutation of your point that if you can see a shadow on it, it must only count as concealment.
Cover entry:
Cover
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).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). 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.
Low Obstacles and Cover
A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
Cover and Reflex Saves
Cover grants you a +2 bonus on Reflex saves against attacks that originate or burst out from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and thus negate this cover bonus.
Cover and Hide Checks
You can use cover to make a Hide check. Without cover, you usually need concealment to make a Hide check.
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 Hide check.
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.
Total Cover
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Varying Degrees of Cover
In some cases, 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 Hide checks.
I would say a piece of cloth would provide "soft cover" (at most) but it would need to have "total cover" to be able to stop the attack. Thus the "hardness of steel" remark.
I assume you mean "quit"? I don't see the need, since you just quoted the whole thing (twice, now). I merely pointed out a sentence that moots your entire argument. Also twice, now.Would you quite partially quoting to skew the issue?
I had already corrected that typo, but thanks for pointing it out. And if you believe that you have "disproved" the facts I have laid out then there is no way I can convince you.
|
|
And if you believe that you have "disproved" the facts I have laid out then there is no way I can convince you.
When you use quotation marks in a response, it is traditional to use them to enclose quotes. The word I used was "mooted", not "disproved". I chose that word fairly carefully.
And from the evidence of the strength of your arguments to this point, I agree that it is unlikely that you can convince me. Please feel free to surprise me.
And if you believe that you have "disproved" the facts I have laid out then there is no way I can convince you.When you use quotation marks in a response, it is traditional to use them to enclose quotes. The word I used was "mooted", not "disproved". I chose that word fairly carefully.
And from the evidence of the strength of your arguments to this point, I agree that it is unlikely that you can convince me. Please feel free to surprise me.
I wasn't trying to convince you of anything but that this is how it is written. You can believe what you like.
(You are correct, it is not a proper quote.)
Edit: I would like to point out that your argument has already been proven false. You are taking only part of the rule and ignoring the rest.
/Trundles over with a red kids wagon full of ironwood, starts tossing it on the fire. Flips it over so I have a soap box to get on.
Looking at what you just posted ArchLich, as a strict reading of the pertinent rules:
Cover
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).
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 Hide check.
Total Cover
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
The wall of the tent does fulfill all the criteria, and someone even said earlier that the wall of the tent would foil line of effect for a magic missle. Just as a window actually blocks line of effect, but doesn't block line of sight, there is a difference. Regardless of the physics of it (as most of the people are arguing - and I would actually tend to agree in that respect) the question is actually of game mechanics. The rule for "Cover" is saying if ANY line is blocked there is cover, I would also hazard to say it is implied that there is at least one line that goes from the corner of the square of the target to the corner of the square of the target that DOES NOT have cover. The reason I say this, there would be no need for a "Total Cover" section stating if you don't have line of effect. This is the case with an archer firing through the tent "wall" at a target, the line is stopping at the wall. None of the lines from the archers square to the targets square are NOT hitting the wall, correct? (Not a theoretical question, I haven't seen the post that started all this, I'm going through this with the idea there isn't some flap or door to the tent involved between the target and attacker.)
Also the mention of "soft cover" by the rules is concerning creatures, just because we may view the material as insignificant, doesn't change the fact that the rules do not differentiate between a wall of stone or a wall of canvas, soft cover seems to be the realm of critters not objects. It doesn't make a tent wall soft cover (unless the DM states so or I guess it could be an animated object too, then it would be true - this is subjective on your part while stating your case, not an actual rule). As the rules have been stated and/or quoted, is the attack valid? In order to see if it is, we then have to see if it has line of effect (And that then becomes the real question). On an aside, could you have a tower shield of canvas? Yes. Would it work as a tower shield (as ridiculous as it sounds)? Yes. It would be a heck of alot easier to sunder as well but until it was destroyed it would provide its full effect.
Now whether or not that makes sense to any given DM for their game... Up to them, no good arguing a game that you aren't playing in. Not to mention there is the "It works/doesn't work because it's my world" the DM can always fall back on (I would hope they didn't, but if you are being annoying/disruptive enough, it might). If the DM wants to make it more realistic/heroic and house rule/make up some stipulations for the character to make the shot, cool. Be happy they are letting you do it, because reading the SRD/rules that have been posted here shows it isn't possible. A character can complain, but as long as the DM is consistant I wouldn't be too irritated with it, take it and move on to enjoying the game. Going beyond the rules written as to the intent or "what should happen", go to the wiz boards for character optimization for that arguement. It's been done. Over. And Over. And again. If you get my drift.
So, in closing, no line of effect from any of the corners is total concealment. Total concealment means no attack regardless of material, shadows, opacity, accuity of eye sight (or lack thereof), wind direction, position and/or alignment of moons, suns, or stars or personal opinion in a game you aren't playing in. It isn't "the rules don't say otherwise so it is going to work". I'm not going to say it isn't reasonable some of the stuff might happen, it just doesn't happen in the context of the rules of the game as per the SRD where you're pulling these rules from. There might be feats or magic items that allowed this behavior in game, but not in the SRD. I think the item property I am thinking about was in Comp. Warrior where a projectile weapon blew through its target to hit the target behind it with a modified AC until it missed. But that is another tangent and not really relevent to the post at hand (but a way you could get it to work!).
/Sits down on my soap box to watch the funny colored flames.
Doug Sundseth & Skylancer4 I guess it sounds like your right.
But of course if it stops an arrow, it stops a cone of cold. Adjudicate as you will.