OK... Two opponents are around the corner of each other. A fighter with a longsword on one side, with a ranger with a bow on the other.
Now, the ranger would have cover from the fighter, while the fighter would not. Would the ranger, using a ranged attack, take an AoO despite the cover afforded by the corner?
..r
f|--------
.|
.|
.|
They both have cover relative to each other. Because the ranger gets a cover bonus to his AC, he no longer provokes when firing a ranged weapon.
ps. i hate drawing diagrams on this forum. :/
..r
f|--------
.|
.|
.|They both have cover relative to each other. Because the ranger gets a cover bonus to his AC, he no longer provokes when firing a ranged weapon.
ps. i hate drawing diagrams on this forum. :/
I think that should have been:
.r
f|--------
.|
.|
.|
Aside from that I agree :)
Technically, no... the ranger wouldn't suffer from cover.
RAW[/url]]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...
Unless I'm misinterpreting things here, but if you look at the diagram for cover and note the ogre. He doesn't suffer from cover when hitting Merisiel (has reach treated as ranged weapon).
And yes, it would be nice if we could post images in our posts, or had some form of "diagram builder" to make use of.
|
Technically, no... the ranger wouldn't suffer from cover.
RAW[/url]]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...Unless I'm misinterpreting things here, but if you look at the diagram for cover and note the ogre. He doesn't suffer from cover when hitting Merisiel (has reach treated as ranged weapon).
The ranger and fighter both have cover. The operative phrase is "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... In this case, the ranger picks the top left-most corner and targets all four corners. A line traced to the bottom right corner of the fighter's square passes along a wall, which blocks line of sight therefore forming partial cover.
That's what the previous two posters are referring to.
The ranger and fighter both have cover. The operative phrase is "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... In this case, the ranger picks the top left-most corner and targets all four corners. A line traced to the bottom right corner of the fighter's square passes along a wall, which blocks line of sight therefore forming partial cover.
That's what the previous two posters are referring to.
But if you look at the diagram depicting cover, it says the ogre doesn't, despite one of his lines traveling along a wall.
You choose one corner. Now draw a line to every corner of the occupied square. If the ranger's above the fighter in the (poor) diagram then his square's corner behind him and to the left would touch on the wall.
|
|
But if you look at the diagram depicting cover, it says the ogre doesn't, despite one of his lines traveling along a wall.The ranger and fighter both have cover. The operative phrase is "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... In this case, the ranger picks the top left-most corner and targets all four corners. A line traced to the bottom right corner of the fighter's square passes along a wall, which blocks line of sight therefore forming partial cover.
That's what the previous two posters are referring to.
The ogre in the example makes for a VERY poor example. Large creatures that fill up one square use slightly different cover rules.
So, the diagram is wrong then... Merisiel would have cover from the ogre with his reach.
If you're talking about the front right square of the ogre (from Valeros's perspective), yes. Because he also occupies the front left square - which has less than 50% cover - Merisiel has no cover relative to him.
Well, it should be at least partial cover then, because his line would have to follow along a cover producing wall. No?
Well, it should be at least partial cover then, because his line would have to follow along a cover producing wall. No?
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).
Her square ends at the wall, as the wall is not an issue from that particular point (the one the ogre can choose) to the 4 points of her square (which end before the wall) he does not have to worry about cover. If the square she was in was less than 5x5 (meaning the wall took some part of the square up, lets say the "bottom" 1' of it), she would be "squeezing" into the square but it would provide cover.
It seems that the rogue should have cover from the ogre. When you draw a line from any corner of the ogre's to the lower right corner of the rogue, that line is along a wall. The rule indicates, as I understand it, that this means there's cover.
Of course, this contradicts the explicit text.
Well, it should be at least partial cover then, because his line would have to follow along a cover producing wall. No?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).
Her square ends at the wall, as the wall is not an issue from that particular point (the one the ogre can choose) to the 4 points of her square (which end before the wall) he does not have to worry about cover. If the square she was in was less than 5x5 (meaning the wall took some part of the square up, lets say the "bottom" 1' of it), she would be "squeezing" into the square but it would provide cover.
Back to my original question then... would the ranger then, assuming he was an Arcane Archer, have line of effect to cast for example a Scorching Ray on said fighter on the other side of the corner?
The sidebar text overlaps with the text on p.196. This states that Merisiel doesn't have cover relative to the ogre because the ogre is considered to have a reach weapon and uses the ranged cover rules.
But that's confusing because the ranged cover rule IIRC is that if you're closer than your target they don't recieve the cover bonus. But Merisiel and the ogre are the same distance - 5'.
hrmm.
needs thought.
Back to my original question then... would the ranger then, assuming he was an Arcane Archer, have line of effect to cast for example a Scorching Ray on said fighter on the other side of the corner?Well, it should be at least partial cover then, because his line would have to follow along a cover producing wall. No?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).
Her square ends at the wall, as the wall is not an issue from that particular point (the one the ogre can choose) to the 4 points of her square (which end before the wall) he does not have to worry about cover. If the square she was in was less than 5x5 (meaning the wall took some part of the square up, lets say the "bottom" 1' of it), she would be "squeezing" into the square but it would provide cover.
Yes he would have line of effect. The Fighter would benefit from cover, +4 AC, and the AA/Ranger would not provoke an AoO.
Yes he would have line of effect. The Fighter would benefit from cover, +4 AC, and the AA/Ranger would not provoke an AoO.Back to my original question then... would the ranger then, assuming he was an Arcane Archer, have line of effect to cast for example a Scorching Ray on said fighter on the other side of the corner?Well, it should be at least partial cover then, because his line would have to follow along a cover producing wall. No?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).
Her square ends at the wall, as the wall is not an issue from that particular point (the one the ogre can choose) to the 4 points of her square (which end before the wall) he does not have to worry about cover. If the square she was in was less than 5x5 (meaning the wall took some part of the square up, lets say the "bottom" 1' of it), she would be "squeezing" into the square but it would provide cover.
How? Since the ranged cover rules state that:
"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"If line of effect isn't blocked here?
Don't get me wrong here... I'm in your guy's camp here. Honestly.
This however is one of the arguments that came up this weekend at our table... in addition to a tiny creature provides you with soft cover if they are in your square...
Yes he would have line of effect. The Fighter would benefit from cover, +4 AC, and the AA/Ranger would not provoke an AoO.Back to my original question then... would the ranger then, assuming he was an Arcane Archer, have line of effect to cast for example a Scorching Ray on said fighter on the other side of the corner?Well, it should be at least partial cover then, because his line would have to follow along a cover producing wall. No?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).
Her square ends at the wall, as the wall is not an issue from that particular point (the one the ogre can choose) to the 4 points of her square (which end before the wall) he does not have to worry about cover. If the square she was in was less than 5x5 (meaning the wall took some part of the square up, lets say the "bottom" 1' of it), she would be "squeezing" into the square but it would provide cover.
How? Since the ranged cover rules state that:
"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"
If line of effect isn't blocked here?
Yeah, you need to finish the sentence. The quote is: "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".
Yeah, you need to finish the sentence. The quote is: "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".
Cover as determined how? Since this this line is from determining cover for RANGED attacks?
(Welcome to my world... btw) :oP
The point is it's the border that provides cover.
lol
The point is it's the border that provides cover.
lol
No... because that would be the corner where I would now start drawing my "uninterrupted" lines to each of your corners. :oP
No, the line is interrupted because it borders with the grid intersection of the wall.
This is not getting us far without proper diagrams tho :/
No, the line is interrupted because it borders with the grid intersection of the wall.
This is not getting us far without proper diagrams tho :/
That depends, are you considering squares to be over lapping or are grid squares separate entities that happen to be sharing a particular line at any one point.
If they share then any 2 points on adjacent squares are the same, they over lap.
If they happen to be sharing a mutual plane then going from one point to the square of the character doesn't actually intersect the wall's square as they are sharing a plane. Looks like Pathfinder considers it to be sharing a common plane but having separate points on each square.
Agreed.
(to Tanis above regarding diagrams)
No, the line is interrupted because it borders with the grid intersection of the wall.
This is not getting us far without proper diagrams tho :/
That depends, are you considering squares to be over lapping or are grid squares separate entities that happen to be sharing a particular line at any one point.
If they share then any 2 points on adjacent squares are the same, they over lap.
If they happen to be sharing a mutual plane then going from one point to the square of the character doesn't actually intersect the wall's square as they are sharing a plane. Looks like Pathfinder considers it to be sharing a common plane but having separate points on each square.
Squares don't overlap, they intersect. It is the line that intersects them that i'm talking about.
I don't get this bolded sentence, in the first para you seperated the two (overlap and sharing) then in the next you use them interchangeably. I'm not attacking, i genuinely don't understand.
No, the line is interrupted because it borders with the grid intersection of the wall.
This is not getting us far without proper diagrams tho :/
That depends, are you considering squares to be over lapping or are grid squares separate entities that happen to be sharing a particular line at any one point.
If they share then any 2 points on adjacent squares are the same, they over lap.
If they happen to be sharing a mutual plane then going from one point to the square of the character doesn't actually intersect the wall's square as they are sharing a plane. Looks like Pathfinder considers it to be sharing a common plane but having separate points on each square.
Squares don't overlap, they intersect. It is the line that intersects them that i'm talking about.
I don't get this bolded sentence, in the first para you seperated the two (overlap and sharing) then in the next you use them interchangeably. I'm not attacking, i genuinely don't understand.
Meaning that if you took 2 cut out squares and put them together to meet on one side you still have 2 separate points on two separate squares, they don't over lap. A character is in essence a moving square so it's corners are separate from the other squares on the grid, they meet, but don't share a point, their corner is "their" corner. The character's corner is distinct from the wall's corner that they are standing next to even though the line "seems" as if the point is the same because they meet.
Meaning that if you took 2 cut out squares and put them together to meet on one side you still have 2 separate points on two separate squares, they don't over lap. A character is in essence a moving square so it's corners are separate from the other squares on the grid, they meet, but don't share a point, their corner is "their" corner. The character's corner is distinct from the wall's corner that they are standing next to even though the line "seems" as if the point is the same because they meet.
So, would you say then, that the fighter does not gain Cover from the ranger/archer just around the corner?
Meaning that if you took 2 cut out squares and put them together to meet on one side you still have 2 separate points on two separate squares, they don't over lap. A character is in essence a moving square so it's corners are separate from the other squares on the grid, they meet, but don't share a point, their corner is "their" corner. The character's corner is distinct from the wall's corner that they are standing next to even though the line "seems" as if the point is the same because they meet.So, would you say then, that the fighter does not gain Cover from the ranger/archer just around the corner?
I was just making sense of the ruling with the Ogre in the PFRPG book lol.
God... where is James, or whom ever, to help shed light on this... :o/
SO, the question now is... does a wall obstruct a line, when it runs parallel with it, when determining cover for a ranged weapon?
