I really hope the cover rules are changed back to the core rules.
Combat already takes long enough without have to be measuring every corner of every square to determine blocked lines. If the GM has a squad of archers, its going to take awhile for that encounter to resolve itself!
When we measure line of effect already, it can be a pain. We have to move minis that are the way as well as anything else that we have thrown down on the map surface.
Some people may not use minis for every battle, so this rule would be pointless.
Paizo, please change back to the ole partial/total cover system.
Actually the melee cover rules are simpler for Pathfinder than SRD. As for the ranged cover rules, the only difference between Pathfinder and SRD is that with SRD as soon as one blocked line is found it ends and the cover modifier is applied. With Pathfinder, the number of blocked lines is counted to determine the cover modifier.
I could see ranged cover as an instance where a sidebar (and I can already hear the groans at the suggestion of including another one) may be in order. The simpler SRD ranged cover rules and the more detailed Pathfinder ranged cover system both being offered as options. Or not.
While I appreciate the attempt to bring back the varying degrees of cover form 3.0, I am not happy with Pathfinder's ranged cover system myself. As a DM I do not use a grid. References to lines and corners are therefore useless to me. I realize that I am probably an exceptional case in this, and have accepted that I will have to house rule ranged cover.
If the Pathfinder ranged cover rules remain, I would request that the table reference the varrying levels of cover by something other than just lines, something similar to the old 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 9/10 system or at least reference them as equivalents.
Freesword wrote: If the Pathfinder ranged cover rules remain, I would request that the table reference the varrying levels of cover by something other than just lines, something similar to the old 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 9/10 system or at least reference them as equivalents. This has been requested multiple times. IIRC, in the Beta release we'll have some new take on the cover in combat rules.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
So is there still a -4 to hit from Ranged to hit something in Melee in Pathfinder or are we using cover rules.
what feat should someone take to replace someone precise shot?
Instead of fixing cover rules (wich doesn´t need to be changed), they should fix/review the concealment rules.
It would be much better to see concealment rules more like they did in 4e, that is, remove the miss chance rolls. Surely that change would help PFRPG a lot, since you remove a great part of the miss chance rolls for the game.
I suggest something simple as that:
+2 bonus to AC for concealment.
+4 bonus to AC for total concealment.
Concealment bonus (+2 AC) would be provided while the target is in lightly obscured places, such as:
-dim light, light foliage or light fog/smoke when the target is NOT adjacent to the attacker;
-heavy foliage or dense fog/smoke when the target IS adjacent to the attacker;
Total Concealment bonus (+4 AC) would be provided while the target is in heavily obscured places, such as:
- heavy foliage or dense fog/smoke when the target is NOT adjacent to the attacker;
- total darkness, or attacker blinded or cannot see the target, target is invisible;
The +4 bonus to AC provided from total concealment also equal the old -4 penalty to attack rolls that blindness and darkness used to impose at 2e AD&D.
Lastly, change the Blind-fight feat. Instead of allowing you to reroll the miss chance, simply rule that the Blind-fight Feat let you ignore one-half of the target´s concealment bonus to AC.
Gabriel Domingues wrote: Instead of fixing cover rules (wich doesn´t need to be changed), they should fix/review the concealment rules.
It would be much better to see concealment rules more like they did in 4e, that is, remove the miss chance rolls. Surely that change would help PFRPG a lot, since you remove a great part of the miss chance rolls for the game.
I suggest something simple as that:
+2 bonus to AC for concealment.
+4 bonus to AC for total concealment.
Concealment bonus (+2 AC) would be provided while the target is in lightly obscured places, such as:
-dim light, light foliage or light fog/smoke when the target is NOT adjacent to the attacker;
-heavy foliage or dense fog/smoke when the target IS adjacent to the attacker;
Total Concealment bonus (+4 AC) would be provided while the target is in heavily obscured places, such as:
- heavy foliage or dense fog/smoke when the target is NOT adjacent to the attacker;
- total darkness, or attacker blinded or cannot see the target, target is invisible;
The +4 bonus to AC provided from total concealment also equal the old -4 penalty to attack rolls that blindness and darkness used to impose at 2e AD&D.
Lastly, change the Blind-fight feat. Instead of allowing you to reroll the miss chance, simply rule that the Blind-fight Feat let you ignore one-half of the target´s concealment bonus to AC.
Changing concealment to an AC bonus strikes me as a bad idea. First of all, concealment does something different than most AC bonuses. Most AC deflects the attack in some way. Concealment prevents the attacker from effectively targeting a person.
For example, firing a gun into a room filled with smoke - it doesn't make it harder to hit anyone - the bullet goes right through the smoke. So, if you happen to point in the right direction, no difference than if there was no smoke. But, the smoke may mean you have to 'guess' which could mean missing the target completely, or hitting a different target...
So, I like the concealment rules. I would never see anyone take a feat that might give you a +2 bonus to hit when you can't see your opponent.
If anything the concealment rules are too easy, since you can't really target something you can't pinpoint. And using a battlemat you can sometimes pinpoint something that you shouldn't be able to.
DeadDMWalking wrote: Changing concealment to an AC bonus strikes me as a bad idea. First of all, concealment does something different than most AC bonuses. Most AC deflects the attack in some way. Concealment prevents the attacker from effectively targeting a person.
For example, firing a gun into a room filled with smoke - it doesn't make it harder to hit anyone - the bullet goes right through the smoke. So, if you happen to point in the right direction, no difference than if there was no smoke. But, the smoke may mean you have to 'guess' which could mean missing the target completely, or hitting a different target...
So, I like the...
Concealment rules are an oddly inovation of 3.0e.
Everybody knows the difference between cover and concealment. If your target has total concealment (e.g. from dense smoke or total darkness), what may happen to occur is that you will not be able see the right square the target is occuping.
And if you make an attack targeting the wrong square, it is an automatic miss, simple as that.
However, if you happen to randonly target the RIGHT square, even so, the concealment (darkness, smoke, foliage) still DOES represent something that makes your target HARDER to hit.
It makes false the statment that "firing a gun into a room filled with smoke - it doesn't make it harder to hit anyone - the bullet goes right through the smoke", because, if you cannot see your target, it will always be harder to hit, even if you pin point the right square.
In the other hand, I fail to understand how a character fighting in melee against someone with less than total concealment (e.g. dim light) has to roll a "miss chance" intead of taking a penalty in his attack roll. It doesn´t make any sense.
Recent threads in Combat & Magic
|
