| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is for spells not weapons but should be taken into consideration
Line
A line-shaped effect extends away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped effect applies to all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
That rule is in the Tactical Rules / Defining Effects section of the Core Rulebook and applies to ALL line effects, not just magic and spells.
Reposting this because of the page break:
Based on my quick and dirty reading of the rules, line weapons can shoot through cover provided they get past DR/hardness and keep on going to their first full range increment. They do not need to destroy the cover first to keep progressing, nor do they ignore the cover (that is, targets behind the cover still get their cover bonuses).
I do not believe that this will work in situations where you do not have line of effect (such as against a target with total cover). You simply can't make attacks against such targets.
Rules References
Line (Weapon Special Property)
This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles. When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment. Roll damage only once. The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll. However, if an attack fails to damage a creature or obstacle hit in the line (typically due to damage reduction or hardness), the path is stopped and the attack doesn’t damage creatures farther away. A line weapon can’t damage targets beyond its listed range. If you score a critical hit, that effect applies only to the first target hit in the line, and you roll the critical damage separately. If multiple creatures are equally close, you choose which one takes the effects of the critical hit. A line weapon doesn’t benefit from feats or abilities that increase the damage of a single attack (such as the operative’s trick attack).Adamantine Alloy (Special Materials)
Adamantine is a starmetal, one of several valuable metals mined from asteroids and planets throughout the universe. Pure adamantine is exceedingly rare and expensive, so weapons using adamantine are always made of an adamantine alloy. Weapons or ammunition fashioned from adamantine alloy overcome the damage reduction of creatures with DR/adamantine, such as many magical constructs, and have a natural ability to ignore hardness when sundering weapons or attacking objects, ignoring hardness less than 30 (see Breaking Objects on page 409). Weapons and ammunition without metal parts can’t be made from adamantine alloy.Cover (Combat Modifiers)
Cover does not necessarily block precise senses, but it does make it more difficult for enemies to hit you. To determine whether your target has cover from your 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. Cover grants you a +4 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to Reflex saves against attacks that originate from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and negate these bonuses.Total Cover (Combat Modifiers)
If an enemy doesn’t have line of effect to you (see page 271), you have total cover from the enemy. A creature can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Line (Tactical Rules; Defining Effects)
A line-shaped effect extends away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect (see page 271). A line-shaped effect applies to all creatures in squares through which the line passes.Line of Effect (Tactical Rules; Defining Effects)
If a weapon, spell, ability, or item requires an attack roll and has a range measured in feet, it normally requires that you (or whoever or whatever is using the ability) have a line of effect to the target to be effective (subject to GM discretion). A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what an attack or ability can affect. A line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question (such as a wall, for most effects), but it is not blocked by purely visual restrictions (such as smoke or darkness). You cannot have line of effect that exceeds planetary range, unless otherwise indicated.You must have a clear line of effect to any creature or object you wish to target or to any space in which you wish to create an effect without an area. For effects with an area, you must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of the effect. An effect that is a burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation affects only an area, creature, or object within line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst’s center point, a cone-shaped burst’s starting point, the center point of a cylinder’s circle, or an emanation’s point of origin).
For definitions of these specific terms, see Area on page 268. If you have a line of effect to some of a target’s space but not all of it, the target has cover (see pages 253–254 for more information about cover). Additionally, an otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it may grant cover rather than total cover against an effect, at the GM’s discretion.
I do not believe that this will work in situations where you do not have line of effect (such as against a target with total cover). You simply can't make attacks against such targets.
I agree, but a target behind a wall does not have total cover against a line weapon that does enough damage or bypasses its hardness.
To pinpoint the relevant lines in your previous quotes:
A line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question (such as a wall, for most effects), but it is not blocked by purely visual restrictions (such as smoke or darkness).
A wall blocks line of effect for most effects because most effects can't blast through it. But a Line weapon can; provided it does enough damage, it is an effect in question that cannot be stopped by a solid barrier. It continues on unless an object (and walls are objects) has hardness greater than the damage dealt. It is a specific rule that overrules the general rule that itself admits there are some exceptions.
Total Cover is defined by not having line of effect. A Line weapon (as above) does have line of effect to anything as long as it does enough damage to intervening objects. You can have Total Concealment but not Total Cover against a Line weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...a target behind a wall does not have total cover against a line weapon that does enough damage or bypasses its hardness.
Respectfully, I disagree. I've already posted all of the relevant rules, so I'm not going to bother posting them again (whole or in part) to try and make my point. I merely wanted to share my own view on the matter, not get into a circular argument with you about it. You're free to come to your own conclusions based on what the rules say, just like any of the rest of us.
Based on what?
1. A barrier/wall stops line of effect if it "can stop the effect in question."
2. Is a Line weapon an effect in question that can be stopped by a wall?
3. No. A line weapon notes that it can pierce though multiple creatures or obstacles. A wall is an obstacle. You roll an attack against all creatures/obstacles in a line, and hit them all. However, if you fail to beat the DR/hardness of a creature/obstacle in that line, it stops.
4. Is a wall an obstacle? Yes.
A low obstacle (i.e., a wall half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (six squares). The attacker ignores the cover if he’s closer to the obstacle than his target is.
Hmm, if a wall half your height is a low obstacle, a wall that completely covers you must be a full obstacle. Does the Line weapon description distinguish between the types of obstacles it overcomes? It does not.
| 18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the root question is: Can line weapons ignore cover and/or total cover?
"They made it for him special. It's an 88 rail cannon. It shoots through schools."
If you think about line weapons as railguns, they totally make sense to work as the rules describe them. Railguns are meant to throw super dense slugs at hypersonic speeds that go right through their targets, much like actual real world, decades old technology tungsten sabot rounds go through main battle tank armor like paper. They are just a lot slower and less energetic than railgun rounds are meant to be.
But if you think about line weapons like flame throwers, the rules obviously seems absurd. But the rules often have absurd components within a general rule, like sonic weapons working in vacuum. If you want to house rule either of these rules by particular energy/damage types to match your view of realisim in a futuristic science fantasy setting, be your players' guest.
For those having a hard time imaging a handhold line weapon punching through up to 100' of stone, please note that the line weapons for starships, including the x-laser cannon mountable on a medium ship, can punch through an effectively unlimited number of dreadnoughts as long as they are in a line of 20 hexes, and the damage beats their DT of 15 (98.1% chance). They're made of stuff a lot stronger than stone.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something to remember is that in this game, specific beats general. Usually a human can’t fly unless they cast the flight spell. normally line of effect is blocked by a wall, but a line weapon hits all creatures and obstacles that they damage (by exceeding or bypassing DR or hardness).
I believe both Ravingdork and Xenocrat are correct to a degree in their reading of the rules. First we know the bad guy is behind a wall. Said wall has less hardness than the weapon. We know he is there but not precisely where. We choose a square we believe the bad guy is, fire the weapon targeting the wall and use the normal line rules. Yes the line weapon in this case would penetrate and continue on through to damage whatever is behind provided the attack to hit the wall exceeded whatever was behind its ac. However this target has total cover as in he's standing behind a wall and we dont have precise senses on him. If we guessed the correct square of the wall he was standing behind or had some form of imprecise senses detecting him then we then default to rules for this. The target would gain cover & total concealment benefits. Still cool for thematic reasons but I can't see how you would rule it any other way.
Still cool for thematic reasons but I can't see how you would rule it any other way.
That makes sense if you have say, an interior drywall door or a thin sheet of plastic.
What happens if you have 20 feet of stone and a 30 foot flame thrower?
What makes it rule the other way is this
General
General rule (and a really important one) you can't attack things you don't have line of effect to.
Line rule: you attack everything between points A and B that you have line of effect to
Line weapon rule: if something in your line doesn't take damage because of hardness or HP your line stops (normally it would keep going)
Specific
Its what the rules say rather than what they imply with a logical fallacy.
Its what the rules say in context rather than snippets
Its more balanced with other weapon types
Its more realistic with how these things work. Yes. its a space flame thrower. It works in space. We just added our own combustion agent because its almost like we were expecting people to take our weapons into space. That doesn't mean its a video game glitch where it shoots through 20 feet of granite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually now that reread line weapon for like the 6th time i realize something .... this may be specific language changing the way an attack normally works .."When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment. Roll damage only once. The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll." ....if so, then neither cover or concealment are meant to apply (never says anything about miss chances from cover or concealment).....remember this is some weird quasi-aoe attack we are talking about ...the only people that really know on this one are the designers
........and regardless still don't think cover can't apply because in the case of a wall that would be total cover and we know things beyond the wall can be struck if the line weapon exceeds its hardness ...total cover would make that impossible ......and how can it provide you cover if the round goes right threw ...false hope bonus? ....maybe if you reduce it all to soft cover(but even that represents a shot getting stopped/deflected by a creature in your path..you can't do that to a line weapon if it beats your dr) .... the description doesn't mention anything about targets\obstacles creating cover for the next target in the path ...the cover in this case either stops it with Hardness(negating the attack entirely), or it doesn't and isn't cover
Still cool for thematic reasons but I can't see how you would rule it any other way.That makes sense if you have say, an interior drywall door or a thin sheet of plastic.
What happens if you have 20 feet of stone and a 30 foot flame thrower?
What makes it rule the other way is this
General
General rule (and a really important one) you can't attack things you don't have line of effect to.
Line rule: you attack everything between points A and B that you have line of effect to
Line weapon rule: if something in your line doesn't take damage because of hardness or HP your line stops (normally it would keep going)
Specific
Its what the rules say rather than what they imply with a logical fallacy.
Its what the rules say in context rather than snippets
Its more balanced with other weapon types
Its more realistic with how these things work. Yes. its a space flame thrower. It works in space. We just added our own combustion agent because its almost like we were expecting people to take our weapons into space. That doesn't mean its a video game glitch where it shoots through 20 feet of granite.
Here's the problem though. You keep using the flamethrower as the rebuttal. We are talking about a very specific instance of a weapon that already has penetrating using ammunition that grants even further and extraordinary penetration. The flamethrower you mention has neither of these things and so would indeed be stopped by the hardness. This is a niche case that is possible. In this very specific case the weapon has clear line of affect to the wall. Your guessing or using imprecise senses to target a square your guessing the real target is behind but non the less your attacking a wall. In this specific case other attacks are possible because the ammunition and weapon in this case are bypassing the hardness that would indeed normally stop the shot, shot moves through did you guess right? did your roll to attack the wall also exceed the AC of whatever is behind? well then awesome you damage it too.
In this very specific case the weapon has clear line of affect to the wall.
Circular. You are arguing the weapon can attack through the wall so it clearly has line of effect so that the weapon has line of effect so it can attack.
Line of effect is not based on the weapon you are holding. It is its own requirement for all weapons and it requires not having the path between you and your square completely blocked. "bypassing hardness" does not change that. Getting through hardness merely overcomes the extra limitation imposed on line weapons that their line stops when they hit something they can't overcome, thats it. They never say that they punch through everything or provide line of effect everywhere. Yes, an adamantine rail gun rod from god overcomes stones hardness. It doesn't completely destroy or negate the wall being there.
Rules can be read more than one way. As soon as you accept that another reading is possible this one becomes more than likely
In this very specific case the weapon has clear line of affect to the wall.Circular. You are arguing the weapon can attack through the wall so it clearly has line of effect so that the weapon has line of effect so it can attack.
Line of effect is not based on the weapon you are holding. It is its own requirement for all weapons and it requires not having the path between you and your square completely blocked. "bypassing hardness" does not change that. Getting through hardness merely overcomes the extra limitation imposed on line weapons that their line stops when they hit something they can't overcome, thats it. They never say that they punch through everything or provide line of effect everywhere. Yes, an adamantine rail gun rod from god overcomes stones hardness. It doesn't completely destroy or negate the wall being there.
Rules can be read more than one way. As soon as you accept that another reading is possible this one becomes more than likely
Well I get you clearly don't agree with this. I am just pointing out that your interpretation of this is correct for the vast majority of cases but in this niche case I dont see any reason why this wouldn't be allowed. As there is no clear FAQ and the existing rules support a very balanced and reasonable approach to this I personally dont see why it would be a problem and its clearly a combination that would come up and be intended to some degree given its inclusion as weapon options. Its clear this is a GM judgement call until something official addresses it, if ever.
That line weapon property has an extremely specific rule as to how it works.
This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles. When attacking with
such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment. Roll damage only once. The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll. However, if an attack fails to damage a creature or obstacle hit in the line (typically due to damage reduction or hardness), the path is stopped and the attack doesn’t damage creatures farther away.
As The Diehard Bard noted: specific beats general. Yes, a wall or a mountain generally blocks line of effect. Line weapons are a special case.
If you roll an attack roll sufficient to hit a wall and the mook behind it && you roll damage sufficient to overcome the wall's hardness, you do damage to both of them. These are weapons that have a special property that explicitly makes them go through things and do damage to more things, in a line.
The problem with your logic is that the moment you follow that interpretation, the flame thrower shooting through a substantially thick barrier becomes possible. It follows the exact same mechanical rules logic you're using for the rail cannon.
That's not a can of worms I think we should be opening.
I'm imagining rail cannon death squads with 60-100 foot range (more with scopes) completely invalidating encounters by simply standing abreast outside a building/room/dungeon/ship/whatever and shelling the heck out of the place, killing everything inside. Though it makes sense conceptually, it's not good game design, and I can't believe that, that was the developers' intent.
Line weapons have only one range increment and can never exceed it (painful when it's a railgun but that's how it works)
The problem with your logic is that the moment you follow that interpretation, the flame thrower shooting through a substantially thick barrier becomes possible. It follows the exact same mechanical rules logic you're using for the rail cannon.
That's not a can of worms I think we should be opening.
I'm imagining rail cannon death squads with 60-100 foot range (more with scopes) completely invalidating encounters by simply standing abreast outside a building/room/dungeon/ship/whatever and shelling the heck out of the place, killing everything inside. Though it makes sense conceptually, it's not good game design, and I can't believe that, that was the developers' intent.
I think reality-checking our far-future magic sci-fi game is probably also not a great can of worms, but we do seems to love it.
I don't fully get line as a special property for flame pistols/rifles, but they do have short range and low damage, so the nonsense result you fear is unlikely to come up often. The line property does say that it fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles*, but it also gives a rule for determining when that happens and when it doesn't.
And, yeah, rail cannon death squads would be terrifying but not unstoppable. Hope they're CR'd appropriately!
*(oh, hey, what about all the non-projectile line weapons; do they trigger bullet barrage? (no. no, they do not))
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with your logic is that the moment you follow that interpretation, the flame thrower shooting through a substantially thick barrier becomes possible. It follows the exact same mechanical rules logic you're using for the rail cannon.
That's not a can of worms I think we should be opening.
I'm imagining rail cannon death squads with 60-100 foot range (more with scopes) completely invalidating encounters by simply standing abreast outside a building/room/dungeon/ship/whatever and shelling the heck out of the place, killing everything inside. Though it makes sense conceptually, it's not good game design, and I can't believe that, that was the developers' intent.
We already have multiple things that bypass cover completely like phasing rounds so its already a thing. I don't see how firing blindly at a target behind a wall that your very expensive gun and ammo is specifically designed to Swiss cheese is broken but again until its FAQ'd we are in GM house rule territory.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out a little tidbit of data on page 409:
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects. Most low-level melee weapons have little effect on metal walls and doors. Certain pieces of equipment are designed to cut through metal, however.
This means that you as GM can simply rule that the <insert elemental line weapon> is an ineffective weapon against an iron door and thus doesn't affect it at all, which stops the line.
So, what exactly is wrong with a flamethrower, with the Line property and enough damage to pierce hardness, burning a hole through a stone wall between you and your target? Its still a weapon, still has the Line property, and still does enough damage to overcome Hardness. Instead of punching through with a high velocity round, it burns through. So what?
If it's burning or punching holes through the wall, why can't people then return fire through said holes?
Just too big a can of worms to be worth it.
So, what exactly is wrong with a flamethrower, with the Line property and enough damage to pierce hardness, burning a hole through a stone wall between you and your target?
1) Its not what the rules say it does
1a) I dislike that sort of Aristotelian rules chicanery to reach that conclussion2) Even by the loose standards of starfinder physics its not just unrealistic its nuts
3) it makes the line weapon far, FAR better than its supposed to be, pretty much making it the only ranged weapon option
4) It's game breaking with the right weapons. You don't go through the dungeon you just level everything from the outside
Its still a weapon, still has the Line property, and still does enough damage to overcome Hardness. Instead of punching through with a high velocity round, it burns through. So what?
Overcoming hardness and damaging an object is not the same as obliterating that object. If i take a pick to a stone wall i overcome its hardness but if i want to hit someone on the other side i'm gonna be there for a while.
The line weapon property doesn't change this.
Yes it does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it does.
It does explicitly that. This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly can't believe the game developers intended "obstacles" to include walls 50+ feet thick.
I wholeheartedly agree with BigNorseWolf. This is Aristotelian rules chicanery at its finest. Allowing it would only end in everyone carrying line weapons and the vast majority of encounters ending without the PCs ever seeing their foes. There's no way that was the developers' intent. Starfinder has been too well fine tuned to suggest that they would even consider something so unbalancing.
But by all means, prove my assertion wrong. Hit the FAQ button in the post linked here and perhaps we'll get a response. If I turn out to be wrong, guess I'll be in the market for a line weapon. >:D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly can't believe the game developers intended "obstacles" to include walls 50+ feet thick.
I wholeheartedly agree with BigNorseWolf. This is Aristotelian rules chicanery at its finest. Allowing it would only end in everyone carrying line weapons and the vast majority of encounters ending without the PCs ever seeing their foes. There's no way that was the developers' intent. Starfinder has been too well fine tuned to suggest that they would even consider something so unbalancing.
But by all means, prove my assertion wrong. Hit the FAQ button in the post linked here and perhaps we'll get a response. If I turn out to be wrong, guess I'll be in the market for a line weapon. >:D
Button hit. If you want to gm fiat reasonable things like "can't go through a mountain" go right ahead, but don't act like that's the same thing as asking if they can go through obstacles, which they clearly can: it says so right in the book.
Also, line weapons are still pretty bad, so I think your fear is unfounded. I sure do like being able to take multiple shots per turn, sometimes our of the first range increment, often through my allies' spaces without having to damage them.
Yes it does.It does explicitly that. This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles.
The rules also say that you need line of effect
The rules also say that cover grants a bonus to ac
The ability to fire through a table doesn't remove either of those.
The rules are not structured in such a way that you can only read one part of them and get any idea whats going on. Read that way you create a contradiction between the line of effect rules and the line rules. Read that being stopped is an imposition on the usual line rules and they make perfect sense.
The problem is that you're not willing to admit that you MIGHT be reading the rules wrong to even look at the other interpretation and see if its better.
Yes it does.
Then engage the counterargument. Restating the rule repeatedly only works if the rule can be read one way and nothing else can affect your decision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems pretty clear, to me. I'm not sure what else it's trying to say, otherwise. Walls are called out as being objects throughout the rulebook, and the line quality mentions damaging objects, so..
Seems like why they made line weapons pretty bad in the first place. They have short ranges, can't benefit from damage increasing abilities for a single attack, and are all unwieldly. You're not shooting through facilities and mountains to kill your targets, because the ranges given don't allow it.
I'm not sure what the fuss is. What does it have to say to allow a weapon to penetrate walls? "Yes, the weapon's attack pierces through a wall. We really, really mean it, this time."
Yes it does.Then engage the counterargument. Restating the rule repeatedly only works if the rule can be read one way and nothing else can affect your decision.
We’ve done this. I’m not arguing with you flat earthers anymore, I’m just leaving breadcrumbs for reasonable lurkers who drop in and are willing or able to see the truth if it isn’t covered up in self confident nonsense.
Seems pretty clear, to me. I'm not sure what else it's trying to say, otherwise. Walls are called out as being objects throughout the rulebook, and the line quality mentions damaging objects, so..
Damages yes. Passes through like its not there no.
Works around. Yes. Completely negates, no.
Those are not the same thing. The rule does not say that they are. You are interpreting that to be there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems pretty clear, to me. I'm not sure what else it's trying to say, otherwise. Walls are called out as being objects throughout the rulebook, and the line quality mentions damaging objects, so..Damages yes. Passes through like its not there no.
Works around. Yes. Completely negates, no.
Those are not the same thing. The rule does not say that they are. You are interpreting that to be there.
I'm not sure what you mean by negating the wall. You have to damage it enough for the attack to continue to the next target. It's not free. You can't be a low level PC with a low level line weapon and penetrate anything.
If we are talking about realism, then I don't know why it's more realistic to penetrate though a Hovertank, or a tank-like war machine like an AHAV, but fail to penetrate a wooden wall. I'm also against the idea that you have to utterly delete a 10x10 section to attack past it, as that makes no sense either.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not arguing with you flat earthers anymore
I’m just leaving breadcrumbs for reasonable lurkers
willing or able to see the truth
self confident nonsense
I asked politely earlier to please tone down the rhetoric. Your comments are simply uncalled for, and I'm going to start flagging them as abusive.
You wouldn't speak this way to your family or your coworkers. What makes you think it's appropriate here?
A community can have a discussion and differ in opinion without the need for personal attacks.
Resorting to ad hominems only weakens your case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not arguing with you flat earthers anymoreI’m just leaving breadcrumbs for reasonable lurkerswilling or able to see the truthself confident nonsenseI asked politely earlier to please tone down the rhetoric. Your comments are simply uncalled for, and I'm going to start flagging them as abusive.
You wouldn't speak this way to your family or your coworkers. What makes you think it's appropriate here?
A community can have a discussion and differ in opinion without the need for personal attacks.
Resorting to ad hominems only weakens your case.
I in fact do speak to my family this way when they are willfully obtuse, and when I was in the army I did the same with coworkers. Embarrassment of weak or foolish arguments in front of a crowd who can recognize wisdom and truth is in fact an expeditious method to cut out BS and move on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually now that reread line weapon for like the 6th time i realize something .... this may be specific language changing the way an attack normally works .."When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment. Roll damage only once. The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll." ....if so, then neither cover or concealment are meant to apply (never says anything about miss chances from cover or concealment).....remember this is some weird quasi-aoe attack we are talking about ...the only people that really know on this one are the designers
........and regardless still don't think cover can't apply because in the case of a wall that would be total cover and we know things beyond the wall can be struck if the line weapon exceeds its hardness ...total cover would make that impossible ......and how can it provide you cover if the round goes right threw ...false hope bonus? ....maybe if you reduce it all to soft cover(but even that represents a shot getting stopped/deflected by a creature in your path..you can't do that to a line weapon if it beats your dr) .... the description doesn't mention anything about targets\obstacles creating cover for the next target in the path ...the cover in this case either stops it with Hardness(negating the attack entirely), or it doesn't and isn't cover
In this case, I'd roll to attack, and damage once as instructed. If the target has cover roll the miss chance as well.
"In this case, I'd roll to attack, and damage once as instructed. If the target has cover roll the miss chance as well."
This is pretty much the way I described ruling it earlier. Roll to attack the wall, check to see if Penetration Beats hardness and damage damage reduction. if both are true then line continues on. If attack roll beats AC of something beyond and it just happens to be standing behind the square of the wall or obstacle you attacked then bonus you nailed them too, however the attack is subject to normal rules for cover and miss chance due to concealment. Its hardly some game braking rules lawyering as some seem intent on labeling it. Its simply using the rules we have.
No its not super clearly called out or explained. In fact the interaction of weapons & objects as well as a whole host of many other things are about as clear as mud in the rules which lead to these discussions and at the end of the day we reach GM fiat, house rule territory until we get a whole lot of FAQ updates. I would say the interaction of weapons like this and objects should be more clearly explained and so I marked it for FAQ in the event these ever get answered. Until then im going with the above in my games.
|
|
I in fact do speak to my family this way when they are willfully obtuse, and when I was in the army I did the same with coworkers. Embarrassment of weak or foolish arguments in front of a crowd who can recognize wisdom and truth is in fact an expeditious method to cut out BS and move on.I’m not arguing with you flat earthers anymoreI’m just leaving breadcrumbs for reasonable lurkerswilling or able to see the truthself confident nonsenseI asked politely earlier to please tone down the rhetoric. Your comments are simply uncalled for, and I'm going to start flagging them as abusive.
You wouldn't speak this way to your family or your coworkers. What makes you think it's appropriate here?
A community can have a discussion and differ in opinion without the need for personal attacks.
Resorting to ad hominems only weakens your case.
Attack the argument.
Not the person making it.
Huge difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Nefreet. It's totally fine for people to disagree on a game rule's interpretation (if said people are at the same table, the GM is the final arbiter). It's even okay to debate the matter. It's not ever okay to levy personal attacks and insults. That is absolutely contradictory to the core nature of the game and this community. Please cut it out.
I'm not sure what you mean by negating the wall. You have to damage it enough for the attack to continue to the next target. It's not free. You can't be a low level PC with a low level line weapon and penetrate anything.
But you're stating that all you need to get through is one point over its hardness that gets really silly really fast.
If we are talking about realism, then I don't know why it's more realistic to penetrate though a Hovertank, or a tank-like war machine like an AHAV, but fail to penetrate a wooden wall.
Your 60 foot line burns the tank and goes under the tank to burn the bad guys on the other side.
I'm also against the idea that you have to utterly delete a 10x10 section to attack past it, as that makes no sense either.
I'm not entirely sold on that either but its all we have hit points for. Needing to bring it to half hit points to reduce it to cover might be a reasonable ruling but one point over Hardness and its butter is nuts.
And again. its not the rule. Its what you're interpreting the rule to be by some very questionable logic.
You're not shooting through facilities and mountains to kill your targets, because the ranges given don't allow it.
I think that was only ever meant to be a theoretical example of taking the argument to its logical extreme. If such weapons with extreme range did exist then, by the logic presented here, you really could shoot through whole villages, or mountains, or whatever. But let's not debate about something that does not (yet) exist.
In reality, the existing line weapon ranges go as high as 120 feet (see below). Most seem to be in the 40-60 foot range. Not enough for mountains, but it's certainly enough to be clearing a whole room, or even multiple rooms, without ever going into them.
120 Cathode cannon, shockstorm
100 Anacite ion cannon, tempest
100 Cathode cannon, paragon
100 Plasma rifle, blue star
100 Rail cannon, paragon
90 Sonic bolter, devastator
80 Frailty cannon, extinction-class
80 Nova rifle, white star
80 Rail cannon, advanced
80 Rail cannon, elite
80 Sonic bolter, assault
80 Sonic bolter, heavy
80 Zero cannon, elite
75 Anacite ion cannon, storm
75 Burner, phoenix-class
60 Burner, firedrake-class
60 Cathode cannon, advanced
60 Cathode cannon, elite
60 Frailty cannon, massacre-class
60 Frailty cannon, murder-class
60 Nova rifle, yellow star
60 Plasma rifle, white star
60 Rail cannon, tactical
60 Sonic bolter, light
60 Storm coil, jolt
60 Stormcaller, rocket
60 Stormcaller, smooth-channel
60 Zero cannon, advanced
60 Zero cannon, tactical
50 Acid lancer, disintegrator-class
50 Acid lancer, liquefier-class
50 Burner, hellhound-class
50 Freeze ray, hypothermic
45 Anacite ion cannon, aurora
40 Burner, salamander-class
40 Cathode cannon, tactical
40 Disintegrator cannon, decimator
40 Disintegrator cannon, eradicator
40 Disintegrator cannon, executioner
40 Disintegrator cannon, liquidator
40 Freeze ray, glacial
40 Freeze ray, isothermal
40 Lightning pistol, smooth-channel
40 Plasma pistol, blue star
40 Plasma rifle, red star
40 Plasma rifle, yellow star
40 Storm coil, live
40 Stormcaller, ribbon
30 Acid lancer, corroder-class
30 Acid lancer, melter-class
30 Burner, ifrit-class
30 Flame pistol, inferno
30 Flame pistol, solar flare
30 Freeze ray, algid
30 Freeze ray, hiemal
30 Lightning pistol, ribbon
30 Lightning pistol, rocket
30 Nova rifle, red star
30 Plasma pistol, white star
30 Stormcaller, sheet
25 Flame rifle
25 Plasma pistol, yellow star
20 Anacite ion cannon, static
20 Flame pistol
20 Flame pistol, blaze
20 Lightning pistol, sheet
20 Plasma pistol, red star
Some of those will cover a whole battlemap. God forbid someone ever opens up with one of these while in a starship or similar pressurized space.
You're not shooting through facilities and mountains to kill your targets, because the ranges given don't allow it.I think that was only ever meant to be a theoretical example of taking the argument to its logical extreme. If such weapons with extreme range did exist then, by the logic presented here, you really could shoot through whole villages, or mountains, or whatever. But let's not debate about something that does not (yet) exist.
In reality, the existing line weapon ranges go as high as 120 feet (see below). Most seem to be in the 40-60 foot range. Not enough for mountains, but it's certainly enough to be clearing a whole room, or even multiple rooms, without ever going into them.
Some of those will cover a whole battlemap. God forbid someone ever opens up with one of these while in a starship or similar pressurized space.
You'd have a 50% miss chance, and that's only if you guess where someone is standing in the first place. You'd mostly be wasting ammo. If this is tactic that happens people will be ready to either charge or retreat after the first line weapon cuts through a wall (and either misses everyone or hits one friend). And since one shot kills are...somewhat rare in Starfinder, it's not that big a deal.
Starships don't depressurize when hit in combat (even when pierced by a line starship weapon), so it's not an issue, just like armor doesn't depressurize when a character is hit for HP damage in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you're stating that all you need to get through is one point over its hardness that gets really silly really fast.
There needs to be a threshold somewhere. But, like a poster mentioned earlier, a GM can rule that fire/cold based weapons, to some degree, can't effectively damage stone walls and thus can't breach. It's not so much about what I'm stating, it is what the line quality states.
Your 60 foot line burns the tank and goes under the tank to burn the bad guys on the other side.
That could be one way of doing it. Though, what about if we replace the fire based weapon with a rail cannon or a disintegrater?
Line weapons penetrating walls isn't going to be the only issue, here. They also can penetrate vehicles and attack the passengers, since vehicles have varying degrees of cover, starting from none to total cover.
I'm not entirely sold on that either but its all we have hit points for. Needing to bring it to half hit points to reduce it to cover might be a reasonable ruling but one point over Hardness and its butter is nuts.
And again. its not the rule. Its what you're interpreting the rule to be by some very questionable logic.
I mean, I get it, you don't seem to agree with the method of how such a weapon quality works, and I agree that maybe certain weapons may seem inappropriate with the line quality.
To be honest, a fire based attack breaching stone isn't all that unrealistic for the game's setting. They didn't mind allowing Thoqquas burrowing through solid stone in Pathfinder by using their body heat to melt their way through, or a Dossenus to chew their way through solid stone with their teeth. Both which are CR 2 and 1, respectively.
Then we have creatures in Starfinder like the CR9 Surnoch, which have acid glands that liquify solid stone so they can tunnel through. These creatures are also hunted for their acid producing glands so they can be weaponized. So even the game has in lore examples of these situations.
Starships don't depressurize when hit in combat (even when pierced by a line starship weapon), so it's not an issue, just like armor doesn't depressurize when a character is hit for HP damage in combat.
The point about Starship line weapons reinforce the penetration interpretation of the rules. Starships are clearly objects. it says so when they interact with PC scale weapons. So please explain how a Starship line weapon can pass through a large ship or hell a Capital ship which could theoretically be as wide as a mountain to hit other ships on the other side and it not penetrate?
For that matter your wanting us to believe that a line weapon passes through PC armor, bone, muscle and back out the other side of armor and then many other PCs (assuming they are standing behind the first target) but penetrating a interior wall is completely impossible?
The counter argument simply doesnt hold up to how the weapons are described and the rules for these weapons were designed. The line passes through objects and it says quite clearly that unless hardness or damage reduction stops it it continues to damage whats behind it.
"This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles. " & "The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll. However, if an attack fails to damage a creature or obstacle hit in the line (typically due to damage reduction or hardness) , the path is stopped and the attack doesn’t damage creatures farther away. A line weapon can’t damage targets beyond its listed range"
The whole argument against these weapons of, omg you could scale them up and shoot through mountains, is moot because.. the game already has line weapons scaled up quite capable of doing just that.. in Starship form. No it doesnt say HEY you CAN shoot though walls. however, what would be the point of mentioning obstacles at all if they were not mean to.. oh I dont know.. shoot through obstacles as it clearly states they can and goes on to provide a way in the rules for those obstacles to stop the shot. What in the world are these obstacles that can stop these shots if not walls / cover/ barrels or whatever the hell the target is standing behind?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're not shooting through facilities and mountains to kill your targets, because the ranges given don't allow it.I think that was only ever meant to be a theoretical example of taking the argument to its logical extreme. If such weapons with extreme range did exist then, by the logic presented here, you really could shoot through whole villages, or mountains, or whatever. But let's not debate about something that does not (yet) exist.
In reality, the existing line weapon ranges go as high as 120 feet (see below). Most seem to be in the 40-60 foot range. Not enough for mountains, but it's certainly enough to be clearing a whole room, or even multiple rooms, without ever going into them.
** spoiler omitted **...
Seems like certain weapons are meant to be better than others in certain scenarios. Yeah you might can attacked through a wall by certain projectiles and it may seem unfair, it's also probably unfair to get pegged constantly by a sniper in an open field 5,000 ft. away while the PCs can't appropriately react to it.
But, like line weapons, sniper weapons are also unwieldly with rather lower than expected damage potential for balancing purposes. Maybe you disagree with how they balanced it, but that's another issue.
Complication!
A few people on both sides of this argument have noted the possibility of a miss chance. Shouldn't it ignore concealment, as an area effect?
If the miss chance is from incorporeality, does a shot passing harmlessly through a ghost also mean it stops?
You're not shooting through facilities and mountains to kill your targets, because the ranges given don't allow it.I think that was only ever meant to be a theoretical example of taking the argument to its logical extreme. If such weapons with extreme range did exist then, by the logic presented here, you really could shoot through whole villages, or mountains, or whatever. But let's not debate about something that does not (yet) exist.
In reality, the existing line weapon ranges go as high as 120 feet (see below). Most seem to be in the 40-60 foot range. Not enough for mountains, but it's certainly enough to be clearing a whole room, or even multiple rooms, without ever going into them.
** spoiler omitted **...
Add the levels to those so we can see how those stack up?
For that matter your wanting us to believe that a line weapon passes through PC armor, bone, muscle and back out the other side of armor and then many other PCs (assuming they are standing behind the first target) but penetrating a interior wall is completely impossible?
That's not how line weapons work.
A line is an area of effect. The flame thrower does not hit Bob, Bill, Agent 21 and agent 24 and shoot THROUGH all of them (if they did that, they'd be dead). The fire is 5 feet wide and although they all occupy 5 foot squares they don't actually fill the squares: there's room between them and the napalm passes through and around those spaces to the people behind them.