This should be a simple question - but we've had a new discussion about it at our game last night.
The text for determining cover for ranged attacks says "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)."
Assuming the following situation, where the Xs are the walls, Os are open spaces, A is an archer, and the T is his target
XXXXX
OOOOX
OAOOX
XXOOX
XXTOX
Would the target have cover vs A's ranged attack?
The only two corners A can choose to draw lines from would be the upper or lower right. (well you could choose the upper and lower left, but then the target has total cover). Lines from both the upper and lower right corners go through the border of the wall to the upper & lower left corners of the target. A wall is something that blocks line of effect or provide cover.
Or does "through a border" mean something that I'm missing?
The reason my group is having this discussion is due to the diagram used for determining cover with large creatures. The descriptive text of that diagram states "The ogre has melee cover from her, but if it attacks her, Merisiel does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon)." However, if you draw lines from corners of the ogres squares they go through a border of the wall and a wall normally blocks line of effect or provides cover. This appears to contradict the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks.
No cover for T from A But cover for A from T.
I interpret the go through as to intersect. In this case the lines are parallel.
Otherwise you could never fire from cover.
And about your reasons for this discussion...
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.
I suppose the scenario does not assume merisiel has any reach weapon.
If merisiel had a reach weapon she could attack the farthest square of the ogre without it benefitting from cover.
Attacks with reach are treated as ranged so the ogre chooses one corner to draw the lines from.
Any of the 4(3 points really)upper corners of his upper squares allow him to draw unobstructed lines to any of merisiel square's corners.
nidho wrote: No cover for T from A But cover for A from T.
I interpret the go through as to intersect. In this case the lines are parallel.
Otherwise you could never fire from cover.
If it meant intersect, wouldn't the "through a border" be completely unnecessary? This is the problem I'm having with the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks compared to what is shown in the diagram.
As an aside, as far as I've been able to determine, the text originally came from the Miniatures Handbook (3.0E). In the MHB the description of determining cover for ranged attacks included the following sentence
"The target does not have cover if the line runs along or merely touches the edge of a wall or other square that would otherwise provide cover."
Which makes me believe that "through a border" didn't mean intersect.
In 3.5E they dropped this line and also did not have the contradicting diagram.
I'm hoping one of the Pathfinder devs comes in and can tell me which way they meant it to be.
And why could you never fire from cover?
Abraxas wrote:
If it meant intersect, wouldn't the "through a border" be completely unnecessary? This is the problem I'm having with the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks compared to what is shown in the diagram.
As an aside, as far as I've been able to determine, the text originally came from the Miniatures Handbook (3.0E). In the MHB the description of determining cover for ranged attacks included the following sentence
"The target does not have cover if the line runs along or merely touches the edge of a wall or other square that would otherwise provide cover."
Which makes me believe that "through a border" didn't mean intersect.
In 3.5E they dropped this line and also did not have the contradicting diagram.
I'm hoping one of the Pathfinder devs comes in and can tell me which way they meant it to be.
Well, I admit I'm in doubt now.
Abraxas wrote:
And why could you never fire from cover?
Sorry, I meant shooting from behind a corner without a penalty. Which is dumb because in this scenario it's possible:
XXXXX
OOOOX
OAOOX
XXOOX
XXOTX
nidho wrote: Abraxas wrote:
If it meant intersect, wouldn't the "through a border" be completely unnecessary? This is the problem I'm having with the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks compared to what is shown in the diagram.
As an aside, as far as I've been able to determine, the text originally came from the Miniatures Handbook (3.0E). In the MHB the description of determining cover for ranged attacks included the following sentence
"The target does not have cover if the line runs along or merely touches the edge of a wall or other square that would otherwise provide cover."
Which makes me believe that "through a border" didn't mean intersect.
In 3.5E they dropped this line and also did not have the contradicting diagram.
I'm hoping one of the Pathfinder devs comes in and can tell me which way they meant it to be.
Well, I admit I'm in doubt now.
You should not be. Archers can in fact shoot around conrners without cover penalties for it.
The diagram on PRPG p.194 (#2) is an obvious example. The ogre has reach and therefore traces cover as if attacking with a ranged attack and as stated in the text Merisiel does not have cover against it.
The Grandfather wrote:
You should not be. Archers can in fact shoot around conrners without cover penalties for it.
The diagram on PRPG p.194 (#2) is an obvious example. The ogre has reach and therefore traces cover as if attacking with a ranged attack and as stated in the text Merisiel does not have cover against it.
Let me elaborate.
My doubt isn't if the ogre can make his ranged attack from behind the corner without penalty. Indeed he can.
But if the line drawn from a corner of his quare coincides(is parallel but is not intersecting)with the wall border like in the diagram. Then what happens?
That is the OP's initial question and it's not resolved yet.
Text and diagram are in contradiction so which one is correct?
I'm more of a visual person so I'd stick with the diagram but I have a reasonable doubt about this.
When in doubt, you could always give the target partial cover (+2 AC) instead of normal cover. This could represent the possible difficulty of firing from around the corner while still benefiting from its cover. I found it rather nice that Pathfinder has an explicit rule for the partial cover, this would be a great place to use it.
On the note of the "border" text, they may be meaning that since the line drawn from corner to corner coincides with the border of the wall, it would provide cover. They could also be referring to possible lines of effect that don't occur in a square (like a wall of force which only has a "border").
This is where the partial cover would come in. According to the rules, the creature has cover, the line is on the border (This is all hypothetical I'm not saying definitely one way or another). However, more than half the creature is not behind the cover (In this case all but a tiny portion of the creature is out in the open), therefore only partial cover is given.
Benjamin Trefz wrote: When in doubt, you could always give the target partial cover (+2 AC) instead of normal cover. This could represent the possible difficulty of firing from around the corner while still benefiting from its cover. I found it rather nice that Pathfinder has an explicit rule for the partial cover, this would be a great place to use it.
On the note of the "border" text, they may be meaning that since the line drawn from corner to corner coincides with the border of the wall, it would provide cover. They could also be referring to possible lines of effect that don't occur in a square (like a wall of force which only has a "border").
I like the Partial Cover idea.
The things about the wall of Force border interpretation that don't jive for me are
1)There is no way to draw a line through a border without going through the corresponding square behind it unless your line is only going down the edge of the square. If the border in that case wasn't meant to provide cover the text "or border" is unnecessary in the description of determining cover.
2)It creates a strange case where an opponent in an adjacent diagonal square can shoot at you around the corner with no penalty and with no risk of an AoO, but you can't make a melee attack back at them without the penalty.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
You have to be able to run parral to walls when looking at cover.
Consider the 5' wide tunnel with walls along both sides.
WWWWWW
AOOOOB
WWWWWW
If A shoots at B does B have cover? When drawing lines from any corner of the attacking square to the 4 corners of the defenders square you must run parrel to a wall.
The corener chosen by A in the above example is the same corner as in.
AWWWWW
OOOOOB
WWWWWW
What about if A charges B.
WWWWWW
OOOOAB
WWWWWW
If A charges B, does B have cover? Again lines from A's corners to B's corner must run parrallel to the walls.
I have to admit I think its pretty silly for two people facing each other with no objects inbetween them to be dealing with cover because they are standing next to a wall.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Here's a link you might find interesting. This is Guy Fullerton's page on cover for melee reach. He was in charge of rules for D&D miniatures until the 4e conversion (he might still be, but I have stoped following D&D minis some years back).
http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DDM/CoverVsMeleeReach.html
It covers pretty much every reasonable example. As melee reach using the same rules and ranged attacks they just would need to represent longer reaches. It has lots of nice pictures too boot.
The Grandfather wrote: You should not be. Archers can in fact shoot around conrners without cover penalties for it.
The diagram on PRPG p.194 (#2) is an obvious example. The ogre has reach and therefore traces cover as if attacking with a ranged attack and as stated in the text Merisiel does not have cover against it.
+1!
Maezer wrote: Here's a link you might find interesting. This is Guy Fullerton's page on cover for melee reach. He was in charge of rules for D&D miniatures until the 4e conversion (he might still be, but I have stoped following D&D minis some years back).
http://homepage.mac.com/guyf/DDM/CoverVsMeleeReach.html
It covers pretty much every reasonable example. As melee reach using the same rules and ranged attacks they just would need to represent longer reaches. It has lots of nice pictures too boot.
The DDM rules are different. They had an additional line of text that is as follows "The target does not have cover if the line runs along or merely touches the edge of a wall or other square that would otherwise provide cover."
This makes the shooting down the edge of a wall case perfectly clear - in DDM.
In both 3.5E and Pathfinder this text is not present. In 3.5E they also removed the particular diagram illustrating a large creature determining cover for its reach attacks - so there is no confusion or contradiction.
In the PFRPG Core Book the diagram is present. The absence of the text quoted above makes the diagram contradict the text that is written.
Does Pathfinder have the guideline that when text and tables/diagrams differ, text trumps tables/diagrams?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I guess I just don't see the contradiction. The text they removed was just to remove confusion, it doesn't change anything.
Running along a wall does not bock line of effect. An archer can shoot down a straight 5' coridor without the target at the end of the coridor getting cover. Despite the fact that the lines drawn to determine if that is cover run parrallel to a wall.
In your world people are going to get cover nearly 100% of the time. Two people standing in an open field are going to have melee cover from each other. Because the line from the bottom corner of the cube of person A, to the bottom corner of the cube of person B runs along the floor otherwise known as an object that blocks line of effect.
Maezer wrote: I guess I just don't see the contradiction. The text they removed was just to remove confusion, it doesn't change anything.
Running along a wall does not bock line of effect. An archer can shoot down a straight 5' coridor without the target at the end of the coridor getting cover. Despite the fact that the lines drawn to determine if that is cover run parrallel to a wall.
In your world people are going to get cover nearly 100% of the time. Two people standing in an open field are going to have melee cover from each other. Because the line from the bottom corner of the cube of person A, to the bottom corner of the cube of person B runs along the floor otherwise known as an object that blocks line of effect.
How would the presence of the omitted text cause confusion?
Cover for melee attacks is determined differently "When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall)." Borders are omitted.
nidho wrote:
But if the line drawn from a corner of his quare coincides(is parallel but is not intersecting)with the wall border like in the diagram. Then what happens?
That is the OP's initial question and it's not resolved yet.
Tracing along a wall is not a problem. Jusat like Merisiel does not gain cover neither would the target in the OP's example.
nidho wrote: Text and diagram are in contradiction so which one is correct? I do not see any contradiction. Will you please point out the exact source of your doubt?
nidho wrote: I'm more of a visual person so I'd stick with the diagram but I have a reasonable doubt about this. For combat the diagrams are always more clear than the text, which can get a bit convoluted.
The Grandfather wrote:
I do not see any contradiction. Will you please point out the exact source of your doubt?
Abraxas wrote:
"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)."
The only two corners A can choose to draw lines from would be the upper or lower right. (well you could choose the upper and lower left, but then the target has total cover). Lines from both the upper and lower right corners go through the border of the wall to the upper & lower left corners of the target. A wall is something that blocks line of effect or provide cover.
To whick i proposed that "through a border" might be interpreted as to intersect the line.
Abraxas wrote:
If it meant intersect, wouldn't the "through a border" be completely unnecessary? This is the problem I'm having with the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks compared to what is shown in the diagram.
Hence the doubt.
To which maezer pointed out the fact that if we take the "through a border" too literally as to include the case when the line of effect runs along a wall(the miniatures rule), we could get into some absurd situations like the shooting in a 5' wide corridor incurring cover.
In your last post you confirm this point again.
I have no more doubts now. Thank you all.
nidho wrote:
[To whick i proposed that "through a border" might be interpreted as to intersect the line.
Abraxas wrote:
If it meant intersect, wouldn't the "through a border" be completely unnecessary? This is the problem I'm having with the text for determining cover vs ranged attacks compared to what is shown in the diagram.
Hence the doubt.
I think the distinktion between square and border is to cover all situations imaginable. Like having cover from an obstacle occupying a square but not actually reaching its square borders or thin walls that do not fill a square.
Maezer wrote: What about if A charges B.
WWWWWW
OOOOAB
WWWWWW
If A charges B, does B have cover? Again lines from A's corners to B's corner must run parrallel to the walls.
I have to admit I think its pretty silly for two people facing each other with no objects inbetween them to be dealing with cover because they are standing next to a wall.
A & B wouldn't have cover vs melee attacks from each other. And yes, I actually agree its silly that they would have cover vs ranged attacks. However, I find it just as silly (perhaps even more so)that in the following case
OOW
OAWWW
OOBOO
WWWWW
A could make ranged attacks, with out penalty and without risk of an AoO, while B could not make a melee attack without penalty.
The Grandfather wrote: I think the distinktion between square and border is to cover all situations imaginable. Like having cover from an obstacle occupying a square but not actually reaching its square borders or thin walls that do not fill a square. Then why not just have the text for determining cover say "If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or object that blocks line of effect or provides cover" They could also just have includeed the rest of the text that was originally part of the rules for determining cover.
My preference would be to drop drawing lines the from a corner (or corners) of your square and instead draw lines from the center of your square, for both melee and ranged attacks.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
You are really looking at semantics at this point. Referring the the 5' coridor. The melee combatant lines go 'through a wall' to the exact same extent that the ranged combatant go 'through a border.' Assuming that border is of course part of a wall.
I am certain the rules are interpreted by WotC to follow the diagrams as given in the link I posted above. And based on the diagram given in the Pathfinder core rulebook, and the fact that they copied this section of text directly from the srd I am confident nothing has changed.
Quote:
How would the presence of the omitted text cause confusion?
I suppose confusion was a poor choice of words. It was edited away as needless words. Just as Pathfinder didn't both to keep the graphical definitions of border, square, and intersection in their book.
Quote:
My preference would be to drop drawing lines the from a corner (or corners) of your square and instead draw lines from the center of your square, for both melee and ranged attacks.
For preference, go right ahead and do it that way. Its a perfectly justifiable house rule. And many system to use the center point for determining cover, just not this one.
Maezer wrote: You are really looking at semantics at this point. Referring the the 5' coridor. The melee combatant lines go 'through a wall' to the exact same extent that the ranged combatant go 'through a border.' Assuming that border is of course part of a wall.
I am certain the rules are interpreted by WotC to follow the diagrams as given in the link I posted above. And based on the diagram given in the Pathfinder core rulebook, and the fact that they copied this section of text directly from the srd I am confident nothing has changed.
I'm certain that WoTC dropped the diagram to get rid of confusion and dropped the text about drawing lines along a wall to get rid of the situation of shooting around corners without penalty.
I agree that it is semantics, but the continuing use of the term border is a poor choice at best.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Abraxas wrote:
I'm certain that WoTC dropped the diagram to get rid of confusion and dropped the text about drawing lines along a wall to get rid of the situation of shooting around corners without penalty.
Just out of curiousity. Exactly which diagram(s) are you refering to? Could you point out the page number and book. Not that I don't believe you as they revamped nearly all the diagrams from 3.0 to 3.5. I am just curious to which picture you are actually refering.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
