|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Let’s say we have a barbarian, a fighter, and a wizard in combat with an ogre. The battlefield looks like the following.
.
.
.
..W..
.FB..
.OO..
.OO..
If the wizard casts magic missile (non-defensively), does he provoke?
The wizard is at range, so the ogre must use the rules for ranged cover when determining whether the wizard has cover. The ogre is large, no matter which square you choose, the two meat shields will always block some of the lines traced from one of his corners, giving the wizard soft cover.
According to PFRPG 196, “You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.” Assuming that when they say ‘cover’, they mean any form of cover (i.e. cover, partial cover, improved cover, full cover, and soft cover), then I think our pointy hat gets to shoot the ogre unmolested.
Am I reading this right?
I read it this way too.
I found a little bit of inertia against it from my players at first but now they enjoy using it to get tactical advantage.
Cover: When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Looks fine to me. No AoO and +4 AC vs. normal attack against the Wiz.
|
|
James, so what are you saying?
You stated arguments but didn't provide a conclusion.
"Use the rules for ranged combat to determine cover for melee attacks against non-adjacent targets."
Those rules say that the wizard has soft cover.
Attacks of Opportunity cannot be preformed through cover. The word "cover" is not expanded / further defined in that particular rules section, but presumably it applies to soft cover as well as hard cover.
presumably. Not sure. Hence the question.
So, if the ranged combat rules say the wizard has cover, can the ogre make an AoO? Does the ogre have any penalty when making normal attacks?
I think James's point of view is:
Soft cover applies only to ranged attacks and the ogre is attacking in melee.
So the wizard has no cover from the melee attack from the ogre and thus can be AoOed when he casts.
But...
"Use the rules for ranged combat to determine cover for melee attacks against non-adjacent targets."
I think this clause supercedes the main rule that says that soft cover only applies to ranged attacks.
I don't think you are correct James:
Cover
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).
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). When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
The first part describes how to check if a creature is in cover when attacked with a ranged weapon - so far no problems. It does NOT deal with the type of cover!!!
The second paragraph starts with how to decide if cover in melee is provided when fighting adjected squares. The method is a little different to ranged attacks in the first paragraph, but in the end the answer is still cover or no cover.
The next sentence deals with cover in melee to non-adjected squares. In this case use the method described in paragraph one. Again, the result is cover vs. non-cover. The whole stuff only deals with how to determine if cover is provided or not (classic boolean question).
When you have determined, that the creature is in cover, it gains the following benefits:
- +4 AC
- not subject to AoO
- +2 Reflex
- Concealment for stealth checks
Now the tricky part - special conditions like soft cover. When you come to this point, the question if a creature has cover is already answered by drawing lines betweens the square corners.
The only thing soft cover changes is that it removes the +2 to reflex and possibility for stealth checks. The ranged and melee part you are always up to, James, is inevitable, since you always need a creature between the attacker and the defender per definition. Therefore you must attack non-adjected squares and also must determine if cover is provided according to a ranged attack (see first paragraph).
It is nowhere stated that soft cover does not work in melee. It just can not occur between adjected foes.
Hope it is understandable what I am up to...perhaps a native speaker can help a little.
Greetings
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I don't think you are correct James:
The only thing soft cover changes is that it removes the +2 to reflex and possibility for stealth checks. The ranged and melee part you are always up to, James, is inevitable, since you always need a creature between the attacker and the defender per...
Hmm, they have changed the wording a bit, but it is still not clear to me that they intend for soft cover to apply to melee attacks with reach.
From soft cover: "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC."
Is a melee attack against a non-adjacent then a ranged attack?
I would have thought that this issue, which was highly debated in 3.5 would have had a special caveat to it as other issues have had done to them.
-James
As it specifically states "ranged attacks" in the soft cover listing, I would still have ruled an AoO against the caster. The ogre's attack is not ranged, but is a melee attack with reach. The caster is in a threatened square, after all as far as reach goes, and the caster's "cover" is not a static item, but is moving in reaction to the combat.
Now, had it been a wall or other solid object, yes, there would ave been cover, but with soft cover, I have always run with it simply applying to ranged attacks, not melee.
I don't think you are correct James:
The only thing soft cover changes is that it removes the +2 to reflex and possibility for stealth checks. The ranged and melee part you are always up to, James, is inevitable, since you always need a creature between the attacker and the defender per...
Hmm, they have changed the wording a bit, but it is still not clear to me that they intend for soft cover to apply to melee attacks with reach.
From soft cover: "Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC."
Is a melee attack against a non-adjacent then a ranged attack?
I would have thought that this issue, which was highly debated in 3.5 would have had a special caveat to it as other issues have had done to them.
-James
As it specifically states "ranged attacks" in the soft cover listing, I would still have ruled an AoO against the caster. The ogre's attack is not ranged, but is a melee attack with reach. The caster is in a threatened square, after all as far as reach goes, and the caster's "cover" is not a static item, but is moving in reaction to the combat.
Now, had it been a wall or other solid object, yes, there would ave been cover, but with soft cover, I have always run with it simply applying to ranged attacks, not melee.
Yes, but the part for reach weapons says resolve it as if it were ranged. So I would say he gets soft cover.
Well the wizard can always take 5 foot step back to avoid AoO...
As it specifically states "ranged attacks" in the soft cover listing, I would still have ruled an AoO against the caster. The ogre's attack is not ranged, but is a melee attack with reach. The caster is in a threatened square, after all as far as reach goes, and the caster's "cover" is not a static item, but is moving in reaction to the combat.
Now, had it been a wall or other solid object, yes, there would ave been cover, but with soft cover, I have always run with it simply applying to ranged attacks, not melee.
I understood the rule that you always perform the reach melee attack in a direct line between the attacker and the target (e.g. thrust a spear, swing a sword etc.). Except some very few flexible weapons (chains, whips etc.) you can not effectively make an attack AROUND an obstacle - thus a creature between attacker and target provides cover. With a non felxible weapon you will nearly always hit the adjected foe before you have any chance to reach the target behind it.
Soft cover is just less valuable, since you can not effectively hide behind a creature in combat (no stealth checks) and therefore you still provide a line of sight for spelles (no +2 reflex).
Sound ok to me...
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
And why do you consider a natural attack with 10' reach to be an attack with a reach weapon?
I'm pretty sure Caineach meant the rules for attacks to creatures not adjacent to you; both reach weapons and creatures with natural reach are included there and both are resolved like ranged attacks to determine cover.
Anyway, I think there's margin to allow both interpretations; it depends on which rule you want to prioritize.
A) Attacks against opponents not adjacent to you are resolved like ranged attacks.
B) Soft cover applies(only) to ranged attacks.
I've already stated that my opinion is A supercedes B but I wouldn't be uncomfortable with the opposite.
It's a personal choice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The caster is in a threatened square, after all as far as reach goes, and the caster's "cover" is not a static item, but is moving in reaction to the combat.
Now, had it been a wall or other solid object, yes, there would ave been cover, but with soft cover, I have always run with it simply applying to ranged attacks, not melee.
I agree with zylphryx.
but maybe someone should point Sean or Jason to this thread.
The orge has reach and should get the AoO because of the reach.
Mike