|
It has come up in our games that a medium size creature sometimes does not provide any cover to a large creature.
Please see the link below for an example image.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Aracase/Cover#
In this picture can #1 shoot both creatures in melee combat without the penalty of cover from his friends? Likewise, can #2 shoot the large creature without the cover penalty?
This is more a discussion about the cover rules in general.
Do characters get to pick which square they attack--as per the rule of picking a corner of the attackers square to a corner of the defenders square--where larger creatures are made up of multiple 5' squares?
In our game we allow this, but I would like to have others share how they handle this.
I would say, at the angles presented, that #2 can shoot the large guy fine; I know it is in the rules that you can pick a "chunk" of a large enemy to avoid hitting your friend.
#1 is a bit trickier. He's fine against the large foe, for the reasons listed above. But I sort of disagree with the idea that he's hitting the top of the medium opponents square. Yes, the geometry says so, but what is he "actually" doing? Unless he's throwing some sort of grenade/mortar/volley that has a downward curving arc of attack, I see it being a straight line arrow/bullet/ray/lazer. Which means from his angle, anything more than a headshot (which if it were even possible due to houserules should still carry at least a -4 penalty) requires him to risk hitting his ally in the back of the head, neck, or upper chest, all potentially fatal locations. I would say his -4 penalty applies, unless he's usuing some sort of "tossed", not "thrown" attack, if you can see the relative difference I'm trying to make. A vial of alchemist fire I would let go, because the fact he's splashing his buddy with it is already a penalty of sorts, in my book.
Others may have other interpretations, and aside from the fairly cut and dry case of the large opponent, mine is mostly a combo of my play style, common sense, and thematic perceptions. ymmv
|
Here's the rule (from the Hypertext d20 SRD):
"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)."
And you can pick any square of a multi-square creature when determining cover.
Now, I read "square" to mean "cube" in a three-dimensional situation. This is largely because you have to trace to the back corners of the square when considering the more common 2D situation--I think the most reasonable way to read that is that you have to be able to trace to all 8 corners of a 5' cube.
So, using your picture and that interpretation, #1 could shoot at the large character without worrying about cover, but there is no corner of #1 that can trace to every corner of the medium creature without intersecting some part of #4, so the medium creature gets cover.