two archers are firing at each other: one has taken cover behind a stone column, the other a drape.
who is better off?
(pg 146)
cover: +4ac
partial concealment: 20% miss chance
- in a normal situation they are equivalent (4/20 = 20%)
- if the attacks overwhelm the ac (only missing on a 1) then the +4ac may not make a difference and 20% is better.
- if the ac overwhelms the attacks (only hitting on a 20) then 20% is much better since it can prevent criticals. this is also the case in normal situations.
in all situations you are better off with the concealment and its 20% miss chance.
these mechanics resulted from an extension of the 50% miss chance for invisibility (which it definitely deserves, a +10ac bonus just wouldn't cut it). understandable. but when you are in a fire fight and you're better off behind a sheet than a stone slab then game mechanics are breaking down.
depends on your definitions of concealment and cover
behind a drape could also be "squeezing through a space" -4 AC lol
concealment and cover could do with a better explanation
it's left way too open and subject to interpretation
could easily argue that statue provides both concealment and cover, as written
or is that the intent? does it? does the curtain?
In the case of this example, I would argue that the archer behind the drape only maintains concealment if he's entirely behind it. If an enemy can see even part of the archer, he can extrapolate the location of the rest of him. If the archer stays behind the drape entirely, he's not going to be very effective, as everyone on the other side of the drape is also going to have concealment. It works if he has the Shot On The Run feat, but that's sort of the point of the feat. Otherwise, he's going to be spending every other round out in the open, or meeting the conditions above that would void concealment. Meanwhile, the archer behind the stone pillar can fire happily from cover without these issues.
CR
In the case of this example, I would argue that the archer behind the drape only maintains concealment if he's entirely behind it.
Then how does "total concealment" differ from concealment?
i was wrong. after a closer look at the numbers it turns out that concealment is better than cover only in certain situations:
- attacker hits on a 6 (or better) before cover/concealment
- attacker only hits on a 20 (+4ac has no effect)
- situations where criticals are exceptionally bad
so, it's unusual that there are times that you are better off behind a hedge than a solid fence but those situations are uncommon enough that the mechanics are just bent, not broken. if you have number crunchers in your group then a house rule that characters can choose to take concealment bonus instead of cover bonus when behind a solid object should take care of it.
d20 to hit before cover/concealment || % to hit target in cover || % to hit 20% concealed target
20 5 4
19 5 8
18 5 12
17 5 16
16 10 20
15 15 24
14 20 28
13 25 32
12 30 36
11 35 40
10 40 44
9 45 48
8 50 52
7 55 56
6 60 60
5 65 64
4 70 68
3 75 72
2 80 76
In the case of this example, I would argue that the archer behind the drape only maintains concealment if he's entirely behind it.Then how does "total concealment" differ from concealment?
The Pathfinder rules state that there may be varying degrees of concealment, but don't provide an example. I can't think of how partial concealment would work, although the image that keeps jumping into my head is that of someone hiding behind a curtain with their feet clearly visible underneath. To me, that's not concealment. I would imagine that in that case, I'd roll Perception checks for the PCs -- if they fail, it acts as total concealment, and if they succeed, there's no concealment.
If anyone can think of an example of partial concealment that isn't magically created (and as such adjudicated by the spell), I'd be interesting in hearing it.
CR
heavy undergrowth gives 30% concealment.
that sort of thing will probably be covered in the pathfinder dm guide.
If anyone can think of an example of partial concealment that isn't magically created (and as such adjudicated by the spell), I'd be interesting in hearing it.
CR
I always thought degrees of concealment were based not on how much of a target was covered, but on the opaqueness of whatever is concealing the entire target. Thus, someone 10' away in a fog, in shadows, or something similar would have partial concealment, while an invisible or completely hidden target would have total concealment. That's how we have always interpreted it, at any rate...
Any situation where cover would apply, but the object isn't strong enough to stop the attack. For example, a PC shoots his bow through a window, using the wall for cover. It isn't solid, though, only wattle and plaster. A crossbow bolt would punch right through, but the crossbowman can only see 25% of the PC's body. The PC has 25% partial cover (the chance the bolt strikes a timber) and 50% partial concealment (the chance the hits the plaster, and having done so has only a 50% chance of striking the PC's unseen body).
Standing right behind a low wall can give some concealment... as does standing with a wall corner between you and your opponent (iirc).