While I was DM'ing my Monday night game a player of mine stated that he wanted to shoot his hand crossbow from behind total cover (i.e., the enemies had no line of sight/effect to him). Technically the rules do not really cover this sort of thing so I let him do it and gave him a -2 to hit. I now think that a -5 would have been more appropriate but just wanted to move the game along.
Does this seem like a reasonable ruling? Perhaps an Athletics(Balance) check along with the penalty would have made more sense? Maybe enemies would be allowed to take a shot at him with a -5 penalty the following round if they liked?
How would the rest of you have ruled this?
How would the rest of you have ruled this?
I would have said that if they wanted cover, they got 100% cover. If they took the action of exposing themselves to shoot, it would reduce the cover to 75% cover for the round that they exposed themselves.
Players have to be realistic. Cannot have your cake and eat it too.
If he was simply extending part of the weapon from behind cover without looking or exposing himself, I would rule it as shooting an invisible opponent or shooting while blinded.
I would describe it as more of a lean and fire. Like in every action movie you've ever seen when someone peeks around the corner, fires a few shots, and then moves back around the corner. Basically, his intention was to try and fire without negating at least SOME of the advantages of cover.
Contributor
|
In that case, depending on the terrain and position, I'd either give improved cover, or have the opponents ready to shoot when he leans out with normal cover.
Normally, because of the breakdown of actions, I'd allow a PC to shoot in the open and move into cover or move out from cover and shoot in the open. Leaning around cover isn't really any kind of defined action though.
Hard call. A penalty to hit certainly seems fair, for what you are describing.
|
Not a 4E player but I will add in about the concept in general, as I do a fair amount of shooting and have recently got into paintball as well.
Total cover is a nice thing to have when the paintballs are splattering all around you. You can stand there and pat the wall and say "nice wall, you're my friend." But the second I lean out the window to fire at them, they can be firing at me. As my paint balls are streaming to them I can see their paint balls streaming at me. If I am not careful I get hit.
You get Total Cover as long as you use it that way. As soon as you expose yourself to attack them, they can attack you.
And it doesn't matter if you are shooting blindly at them either. In one game I was on the left of a window, a buddy on the right. he made a hand gesture for me to move, and he put his hand out a bit too far. Paint ball splattered all over his hand. He was hit and out. So, if you just stick your hand around the corner to shoot (target as if shooting invisible works fine here) the enemy has a chance to hit you.
Not a 4E player but I will add in about the concept in general, as I do a fair amount of shooting and have recently got into paintball as well.
Total cover is a nice thing to have when the paintballs are splattering all around you. You can stand there and pat the wall and say "nice wall, you're my friend." But the second I lean out the window to fire at them, they can be firing at me. As my paint balls are streaming to them I can see their paint balls streaming at me. If I am not careful I get hit.
You get Total Cover as long as you use it that way. As soon as you expose yourself to attack them, they can attack you.
And it doesn't matter if you are shooting blindly at them either. In one game I was on the left of a window, a buddy on the right. he made a hand gesture for me to move, and he put his hand out a bit too far. Paint ball splattered all over his hand. He was hit and out. So, if you just stick your hand around the corner to shoot (target as if shooting invisible works fine here) the enemy has a chance to hit you.
Yes, that's sort of how I was envisioning it, but that's only really applicable in 4E DnD terms (or any edition) if the enemies had been delaying their action for that opportunity. Looking back at it a few days later, I think allowing the enemies to have line of sight/effect to him for the rest of the round for a -2 or -5 penalty makes sense. The following round, if he chose to stay put, he would regain the benefits of total cover and could no longer be targeted.
On the map, I could just put him between squares until the round ended.
New situation, with B being a bit more out of sight:A = the character
B = an enemy
o = empty space
0 = a wall (thick enough to block the entire 5' space it occupies)oooooo
ooBooo
oooooo
oo0000
ooAooo
ooooooB is now farther to the right. Now, both characters have regular cover from each other - each can draw a line from one of their left corners to both left corners of the enemy, but neither right corner.
New situation, with B being even farther out of sight:
This is sort of how the situation was. The character in question was right up against a stalagmite. I was under the impression, however, that if the line you're drawing from corner to corner touches any solid object, then it is not a clear line. In this case it passes along the edge of the wall.
I do not think, in this case, that the characters have line of effect/sight on each other. I am, unfortunately, at work right now and can't check my books. You may be right, but it seems kinda' fruity. Below is how I'd show the situation using your diagram method.
A=PC
B=Enemy
o=Normal Square
S=Stalagmites
oooooooooo
ooooAooooo
oooSSooooo
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
ooooBooooo
I agree that it's normally pretty easy to determine cover, but he was attempting something that's not strictly covered by the rules. I actually happen to like their rules for cover.
Cover in both 3e and 4e is determined by the square of the attacker and the square of the target. A PC cannot increase or decrease the level of cover for the square that they occupy.
I understand that's how it's supposed to work in purely gamist terms. However, I like to encourage my players to be a bit more free with the rules and generally adjucate things as they come up. I think I dealt with it well enough at the time, but would like some insight on how some other people might have rules this. I guess I'm asking for a "house rule" in this case that would be fair to the enemies and the PCs.
I doubt it will come up too entirely often, but sometimes it's just fun to brainstorm about such things. I'm having a long day at work and needed something to keep my brain moving, as there haven't been a lot of new threads lately. :)
BTW, thank you, everyone, for your contributions.
|
|
Again, please forgive my lack of 4E knowledge but just trying to help on the concept level more.
I assume 4E is still working on 1 round equals 6 seconds or some similar time. I would say that a -2 sounds perfectly plausable, and that a readied action is not really necessary. If the enemy has any idea at all that you are behind the cover they are watching and waiting for any sign of vulnerability and 6 seconds is a long time.
I know this is probably going against the rules, but is more based upon my experience, which is not the same, but rather similar.
This is sort of how the situation was. The character in question was right up against a stalagmite. I was under the impression, however, that if the line you're drawing from corner to corner touches any solid object, then it is not a clear line. In this case it passes along the edge of the wall.Hmm, looking at it more closely, the rules actually get somewhat weird there. Here is what the section on cover has to say:
PHB 280: "To determine if a target has cover, choose a corner of a square you occupy (or a corner of your attack’s origin square) and trace imaginary lines from that corner to every corner of any one square the target occupies. If one or two of those lines are blocked by an obstacle or an enemy, the target has cover. (A line isn’t blocked if it runs along the edge of an obstacle’s or an enemy’s square.) If three or four of those lines are blocked but you have line of effect, the target has superior cover."
So, that seems pretty clear that you can trace along an edge and it is still a clear shot.
Except... the rules for Line of Sight / Line of Effect say otherwise.
PHB 273: "To determine whether you can see a target, pick a corner of your space and trace an imaginary line from that corner to any part of the target’s space. You can see the target if at least one line doesn’t pass through or touch an object or an effect—such as a wall, a thick curtain, or a cloud of fog—that blocks your vision."
Looks like I was getting the line of sight/effect rules mixed up with the cover rules. Thanks for clearing that up.
The way I read it, improved cover is basically akin to hiding behind a wall that is low enough to shoot over (would probably only work with a crossbow) or an arrow slit that gives you a wide field of fire. That means to gain the benefit you have to remain relatively still. If you want to do the "peek and shoot" bit like you see in all the cop movies, you may want to assign a penalty of -2 to hit or more b/c you are basically trying to aquire a quick sight picture and snap a shot off before someone returns fire.