So, we're in the middle of a game right now and we've encountered a group of enemies that are firing at us from arrow slits. I have improved point blank shot. The DM is ruling I can't shoot any enemies until I get within 5 feet of the slit because none of the four 'corners' of my character's occupied square can draw a LOS to the enemy. My only option to shoot them is to move within 5 feet of the slits and subsequently potentially provoke attacks from the other side (if they can melee or have natural weapons).
My case was as follows (from Core, pg. 196):
In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies.
Can't LoS be drawn from any point in a character to any other point? Otherwise larger creatures could have a lot of trouble hitting through cover.
What's everyone's take on this situation?
K... :(
If I recall correctly, this situation would be appropriate to use the Improved Cover to the benefit of your enemies, while your enemies' attacks are unhindered (or at least hindered less).
Additionally, you cannot make attacks of opportunity on enemies that are benefiting from Cover, should your DM decide to give you any. Though, if they're using ranged weapons on you, they won't be making any AoOs themselves - ranged weapons don't threaten.
|
I was not making any attacks of opportunity, that was a bit misinformation. Essentially, I ruled that if he was more than 5 ft. from the arrow slit, the enemies inside had total cover. If he was next to the arrow slit then they would have regular cover (which he ignores).
They had halberds and were able to attack through the slits, albeit with him having cover.
I fail.
I would say they have improved cover - the only way they'd have total cover is if they were blind firing through the arrow slit, in which case they'd be...well...blind, as far as attacks against you are concerned.
They had halberds and were able to attack through the slits, albeit with him having cover.
I really hope you were giving them crippling attack penalties. I could almost buy this with a longspear, they're maneuverable, but a Halberd? Now way. Not only would the attack have no power behind it (no room to swing when it's in the slit) but they'd only be able to move the weapon up and down. Not exactly hard to get out of the way of. Spears would be harder to avoid and predict.
As for cover, the OP's rules quote is accurate. That's the exact situation in which the +8 ac from cover applies. Feats that let you ignore cover were created to allow awesome fantasy archers to be able to shoot people through the wrong side of an arrow slit.
If they can attack you with a bow, you can attack them. Just not quite as easily. (unless you ignore cover)
I would say they have improved cover - the only way they'd have total cover is if they were blind firing through the arrow slit, in which case they'd be...well...blind, as far as attacks against you are concerned.
Agreed, 100%
Unless they managed to move away from the slit before and after a shot such as with Shot on the Run. Take a 5 foot step to get into position, fire crossbow through slit, move behind cover and reload (rapid reload of course), next round move back into position again and repeat. Since there is not LOE when they move they have total cover. I suppose you could hold your shot til you see them move into position and fire then against their improved cover. Makes sense to me in a visually pleasing way.
Additionally, with a little craftsmanship or an ally they could produce a shudder system. Ally raises shield over slit as his buddy reloads from the volley, or have a simple peddle-shudder that moves when he pushes down so we can fire.
...
I need to stop thinking like this.
|
|
Since we are at a break, here is some more information.
The players were assaulting a fort. The second level had arrow slits wrapping around the whole building. The second level also had murder holes that went down and could stab around the first level (there was overhang).
Really, the main part of this is how I ruled Storn attacking. Storn is a zen archer and had fly cast on him. He was flying around the second level trying to shoot those within. I ruled that anyone *inside* the fort (on the other side of arrow slits) had total cover if Storn was more than 5 ft. away from the slit. If Storn was next to the slit, they only had Improved Cover (which he could ignore, thanks to Improved Precise Shot).
I did have a creature occasionally stab out with a halberd, which (based on pictures I got from google images) looked like they could. They were thin enough. I gave Storn cover, and I don't think I actually hit with any. The only one that really had a chance was a guy with a crossbow (that had Seeking).
Anyhow, the *main* argument was whether or not Storn could shoot a person inside the fort, through an arrow slit, from outside. My ruling was that he could not unless he was adjacent to the arrow slit. Pathfinder's rules say that, if you cannot draw a line from any corner of your square to any corner of someone else's square without passing through a wall, then you have total cover. More than 5 feet away from the arrow slit and that really is the case.
It may not be the *right* call, it was just a call for the time. As for the halberd, maybe they should not be able to attack out, but as they never really hit I didn't think it an issue. They mostly used them to stab down through the murder holes at people on the first floor.
The question is, at what point does a creature on the inside of a fort (opposite side of an arrow slit) have total cover in relation to someone on the outside? I don't agree it should *always* just be Improved Cover, it should be Total at *some* point (based on the Pathfinder rules).
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
It may not be the *right* call, it was just a call for the time. As for the halberd, maybe they should not be able to attack out, but as they never really hit I didn't think it an issue. They mostly used them to stab down through the murder holes at people on the first floor.
You are the GM. That in of itself is the answer to if it was the *right* call.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I allow characters using an arrow slit a cone area in which they can shoot targets, originating from the slit itself. Any NPC inside that cone can hit the character as if the character had improved cover. Any NPC outside the cone can't hit the character because he has total cover.
My players would shoot, take a 5ft step away from the slit for full cover to reload crossbows, and next round 5 foot step back and fire. After the 2nd round, my NPCs started readying attacks for when they would pop up to shoot.
No, sorry, the entire point of improved precise shot is to eliminate cover. Your player had an ability that negated the advantage the NPC's were trying to use against him. You made the feat, and his character, useless by not allowing him and the feat to do what they should by all right be able to do: shoot at someone standing behind cover as if the cover wasn't there.
You cannot make attacks of opportunity against characters with cover relative to you. The defenders cannot stick spears out of the hole to get aoos against the attackers.
No one is going to be attacking anyone with a halberd through an arrow slit unless these are some sort of huge ass arrow slits.
Never mind that they couldn't use AoOs since he had cover.
For clarification on large-sized creatures and interaction with cover, yes, large creatures in combat minimize cover.
When a smaller creature is behind cover, a large size creature can pick any 'square' that makes up its composite size as the source of the attack, giving it more opportunities to ignore cover.
Similarly, when a larger creature is behind cover, an attacker can pick any 'square' of the larger creature to target, giving more opportunities to ignore the cover.
I ruled that if he was more than 5 ft. from the arrow slit, the enemies inside had total cover. If he was next to the arrow slit then they would have regular cover (which he ignores).
-An arrow slit doesn't function by distance: it functions by angle. 5 feet directly in front of the slit should be the same as 30 feet or 40 feet.
-Improved cover is still cover. The feat ignores anything less than total cover.
Your ranged attacks ignore anything but total concealment and cover.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: Your ranged attacks ignore the AC bonus granted to targets by anything less than total cover, and the miss chance granted to targets by anything less than total concealment. Total cover and total concealment provide their normal benefits against your ranged attacks.
Normal: See the normal rules on the effects of cover and concealment in Combat.
|
|
As I said much earlier, none of them made attacks of opportunity through the arrow slits. One of them did make a single attack through one, and it did not even hit. As the creatures involved were written in the adventure as stabbing through similarly sized holes (called firing loops) on the floor below, I figured that they could do the same with the arrow slits above. As the adventure described, they were very similar. Though again, that was never the issue. A creature attempted it once, it missed, no foul. If anything it wasted its action.
The issue was with the arrow slits, firing from the outside to a creature on the inside. I get how useful Improved Precise Shot is, and that yes, Improved Cover is not Total Cover. As I said above, I am aware that the ruling was not, likely, what is given by RAW. As for completely making the character useless, I highly doubt that. He still completely destroyed the one boss hiding behind the arrow slits when he got close (as I asked) and was able to similarly affect others before. I don't think my ruling (call it a House Rule if you really want) that he needed to be next to the arrow slits was a huge deal. As it is, arrow slits have arisen maybe twice in this campaign (including this time) since he acquired IPS at 6th level (they were 7th in this encounter). It's come in handy plenty of other times to ignore soft cover and normal cover. Arrow slits are the one thing I've always been iffy on.
I am not sure if, in the future, I will just allow shots from them to pass through arrow slits at any distance (which is really hard to visualize sometimes depending on where they are in relation to the enemy, especially with foot+ thick walls) or just allow IPS to reduce "Improved Cover" to a +4 instead of negating it entirely. I dunno. It's hard to go from no IPS (+4 to their AC from Soft Cover or regular Cover, +8 behind an arrow slit) to negating it entirely (so you can still do full damage even if all you can see is a freaking toe). I can suspend my disbelief quite a bit, but being able to do the ton of damage he can do (with str, weapon spec, noble scion, and deadly aim, it's around 1d8+11 per arrow) when only seeing the smallest bit of flesh just is a bit hard to accept.
Thanks for all the input.
To make it as simple as possible, if you can attack them, they can attack you. Yes, firing into an arrow slit is ridiculously unlikely -- that's why it's +8 AC. Yet the fact remains that there's at least a hand an eye you can fire back at. Whatever angles can be hit by the archer can try to hit back, and the improved cover is their penalty, no nerfing of feats necessary.
Besides, Improved Precise Shot is a pretty big reward for an archer that's had to spend levels taking a -4 for firing through cover and a -4 for firing into melee over and over and over. I wouldn't feel good about diminishing that.
|
|
The two people that have it got it for free as a bonus feat at 6th level (Zen Archer and Ranger respectively). The only thing they had to deal with before that was the -4 firing through cover, the -4 for firing into melee was gotten rid of with normal Precise Shot.
I get how it should work. Again, it's just a hangup. The player wasn't happy with the ruling at the time (even though no negative really came of it, he still killed the boss, just a bit closer then desired) and made the post. It may become a house rule. I still think Improved Precise Shot would be perfectly fine even if it just reduced Cover bonuses by 4 (hell, the only thing that it *wouldn't* completely negate would be arrow slits, and even then it cuts the bonus they provide in half). It's something I just need to consider.
The issue was with the arrow slits, firing from the outside to a creature on the inside. I get how useful Improved Precise Shot is, and that yes, Improved Cover is not Total Cover. As I said above, I am aware that the ruling was not, likely, what is given by RAW.
It just goes against raw, intent, fair play and realism. I just can't see any reason for the ruling.
raw: pretty clear. Its improved cover, improved precise shot negates it.
Intent: The point of improved precise shot is to let an archer shoot things with cover and concealment.
fair play: its a feat that's tailor made for this sitution and he took it.. but it didn't work.
realism: http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/722735 this is a view from an arrow slit on the inside. You can see the inverted V that allows the archer to move left and right and still see the outside, getting a decent field of fire.
5 feet ahead, at what looks like a newer wall, An archer could put his bow directly into the slit and let loose at someone inside.
but imagine someone sitting in the bedroom of the first house you can see the windows on. The defending archer could easily lob an arrow into that window. Someone at that window would have a lot of trouble shooting back at the archer but it would be possible. The difficulty would come because of the narrow gap of the arrow slit... which is precisely the difficulty that improved precise shot removes.
If that seems unrealistic, remember that at 11th level your characters are better at what they do than anyone who's ever lived in the real world. At this point they're quickly moving from "bad ass" to "legendary".
If you're worried about the power level... don't be. A wizard could have just turned the big bad into a carp or a pile of ashes from being able to see his pinkie. The LAST thing the game needs is people making things WORSE for martial classes than they already are.
|
|
I think you're over-reacting just a bit. The archer in question averages 30+ damage a round with attacks, and that's if he misses with half of his attacks (of which he usually gets 4 with a ki point. Characters in Kingmaker can often blow their daily resources in a single encounter or group of encounters, so using a ki point every round isn't hard).
I really don't think that imposing a +4 bonus on AC to things in the rare instance of Improved Cover instead of +8 (as far as I know, only things behind arrow slits) would ever be more than a mere annoyance. It certainly won't nerf him for more than 2% of this campaign's encounters.
And yes, I totally agree, an archer 5 feet away from that arrow slit shooting at someone inside could definitely work. Hence why I said the cover bonus was negated if he was within 5 feet of the arrow slit. My only gripe came from when he wanted to be 150 feet away and fire inside without penalty (as even that's still within one range increment for the zen archer with 1 ki point). I get it though, RAW, he should. Even I occasionally have issues with the RAW. ;)
I would think that if the enemy had LOS on the Ranger, then the Ranger would naturally have LOS on the enemy. We all saw FotR when both Aragorn and Legolas shot through the two-inch hole in the door in Moria. It's completely possible to put an arrow through a hole that small, and, IMHO, that's exactly what IPS is for.
Kingmaker really isn't representative of the game at all. The vast majority of games work under the assumption that there will not be a maximum of one encounter a day.
The game master made a call during the game.
Was it a perfect call? Perhaps not. But the GM made a call during the game and the play continued. No big deal.
There are valid arguments from both sides.
According to what I see as RAW, if the people behind the arrow slits can shoot out, then the ranger should be able to shoot back, providing that the ranger can actually see those firing out of the arrow slits (likely darker inside, thick walls, etc).
|
|
Anyhow, the *main* argument was whether or not Storn could shoot a person inside the fort, through an arrow slit, from outside. My ruling was that he could not unless he was adjacent to the arrow slit. Pathfinder's rules say that, if you cannot draw a line from any corner of your square to any corner of someone else's square without passing through a wall, then you have total cover. More than 5 feet away from the arrow slit and that really is the case.That arguement works both ways. If he cannot draw a line to them without passing through a wall, then surely they cannot draw such a line to him unless they have some form of one-way-only barrier.
If you think your players are two overpowered for your homegame then beef up their opponents to make the encounters a challenge rather than introducing last minute house rules to restrict clearly written character abilities.
Eh, that's not always true. On an extreme example, a tiny hole in a wall could allow a spellcaster to see an enemy outside 10 feet away and have line of effect enough to cast a scorching ray or something. The enemy would have quite a difficult time hitting the spellcaster in return. That's the whole point of arrow slits after all. Allowing an archer clear field of fire while providing them a great deal of protection.
It's also not really a matter of characters being overpowered. What I meant earlier was that I don't think nerfing IPS in relation to arrow slits would really hurt the campaign as a hole. It might make one or two encounters more difficult. That's about it.
I think you're over-reacting just a bit. The archer in question averages 30+ damage a round with attacks, and that's if he misses with half of his attacks (of which he usually gets 4 with a ki point.)
30 damage a round is... kinda low at that level.
I really don't think that imposing a +4 bonus on AC to things in the rare instance of Improved Cover instead of +8 (as far as I know, only things behind arrow slits) would ever be more than a mere annoyance. It certainly won't nerf him for more than 2% of this campaign's encounters.
So then why do it? It's not like the player is abusing some loophole in the raw.
I ruled that if he was more than 5 ft. from the arrow slit, the enemies inside had total cover. If he was next to the arrow slit then they would have regular cover (which he ignores).
This is just not how arrow slits work. I could see ruling this if you were not within a cone , or even not in a line in front of the arrow slit, but you have the same line of fire from 5 10 15 20 or 40 feet.
Deciding this way midgame happens, i just can't see ANY reason or underlying for holding to it in future scenarios.
|
|
Here's a question of my own. Let's assume I did go with the RAW and just say that an archer with IPS can shoot a guy inside of an arrow slit just as easily as he can shoot out. Do you think there would be any kind of penalty on a Perception check to see inside said slit, or just a limit on how far someone could be to see inside period?
If a guy was flying 150 ft. away from a fort and attempting to look through an arrow slit, how successful would they be? DC 15 (from 150 ft.) to notice anyone, but plus how much? I would think that, due to perspective, the farther away one was from the hole the smaller it would appear (and thus the harder to see through). Thoughts?
|
|
So then why do it? It's not like the player is abusing some loophole in the raw.
It's a personal hangup on ranged characters being the new high damage dealers in Pathfinder. In my Legacy of Fire campaign, a ranger dominated the DPS, and now a zen archer does in Kingmaker. Being able to stand (or fly in this case) in one place and get full attacks all the time is already pretty great, but being able to do it while negating any form of cover whatsoever (other then a solid wall) makes me cringe a bit.
This isn't really a hangup on the character in question, more on Improved Precise Shot. I'm ok with it negating Cover and Concealment (alone, i think that'd be worth a feat) I'm just a bit iffy on it completely negating Improved Cover as well.
This is just not how arrow slits work. I could see ruling this if you were not within a cone , or even not in a line in front of the arrow slit, but you have the same line of fire from 5 10 15 20 or 40 feet.Deciding this way midgame happens, i just can't see ANY reason or underlying for holding to it in future scenarios.
I agree that treating it as Total Cover was not the best judgment. The better one, if I really wanted to House Rule it, would have been to allow him to fire from farther but just halve the Cover bonus (guys inside getting +4 instead of +8).
Here's a question of my own. Let's assume I did go with the RAW and just say that an archer with IPS can shoot a guy inside of an arrow slit just as easily as he can shoot out. Do you think there would be any kind of penalty on a Perception check to see inside said slit, or just a limit on how far someone could be to see inside period?
If a guy was flying 150 ft. away from a fort and attempting to look through an arrow slit, how successful would they be? DC 15 (from 150 ft.) to notice anyone, but plus how much? I would think that, due to perspective, the farther away one was from the hole the smaller it would appear (and thus the harder to see through). Thoughts?
It would depend on the light levels inside and outside and what sort of vision the attacker has.
The thing is that the DC to spot someone fighting is ...none. Someone fighting (and that includes shooting out of an arrow slit) is plain as day.
If you want to go with realism, you know that if someone shoots out of the arrow slit, then they're standing behind the arrow slit. Even if you couldn't see them, for some reason, shooting the arrow strait into the hole will mean you're shooting the arrow strait into them.
|
|
It would depend on the light levels inside and outside and what sort of vision the attacker has.
The thing is that the DC to spot someone fighting is ...none. Someone fighting (and that includes shooting out of an arrow slit) is plain as day.
If you want to go with realism, you know that if someone shoots out of the arrow slit, then they're standing behind the arrow slit. Even if you couldn't see them, for some reason, shooting the arrow strait into the hole will mean you're shooting the arrow strait into them.
That wasn't really the issue. This was more in regards to a specific situation. In this case, the archer in question was flying around the second floor of the building. He wanted to look through the arrow slits and fire at anyone inside (whether they were right next to an arrow slit or 10-15 ft away). As he didn't know where anyone was and there were a lot of arrow slits, Perception becomes the issue. How much should an arrow slit increase the DC to see someone? And yes, I know, normally there isn't a check, but in this case I think there should be. It's a gap a half a foot wide, seeing through it when close isn't an issue, but at 100+ feet I'd have to think it started to inhibit your sight.
Also, if you *couldn't* see someone and were just firing into the arrow slit hoping to hit someone, how is that any different from attacking into the square of an invisible creature? I'd think it'd be a 50% miss chance if you couldn't actually spot your target.
It's a personal hangup on ranged characters being the new high damage dealers in Pathfinder. In my Legacy of Fire campaign, a ranger dominated the DPS, and now a zen archer does in Kingmaker. Being able to stand (or fly in this case) in one place and get full attacks all the time is already pretty great, but being able to do it while negating any form of cover whatsoever (other then a solid wall) makes me cringe a bit.
Ok, two things.
1) Why is this bad
2) Why is this happening?
3) What can be done about it besides ad hoc nerf bat under a veneer of realism.
1) Why is this bad is something i have to ask you. What's wrong with a particular martial option being the best damage dealer? If you go the archery route you have to give up tanking for your party: ALL you do is damage. If its the ONLY thing you do then yes you SHOULD do it better than everyone else.
2) This is happening because in your game or scenarios, melee fighters are not getting full attacks. This is incredibly common. I see it in almost every game i've been in. The system is designed to give fighters extra damage through iterative attacks, but then provides few situations where these full attacks come into play: everyone is too busy moving around to make them. It's exciting, dramatic, and a good use of terrain, but at higher levels it drops melee DPR into the toilet.
3) If you want to see martial characters going towards melee, make melee more worth while. Have mobs rush at the party en masse and get in their faces (reach weapons make the 5 foot step and shoot less of a problem). Use tougher opponents with damage reduction (since damage reduction takes off of each arrow) Spellcasters with windwall can be hell on an archer as well... and since archers are so common now more casters should be prepared for them.
This isn't really a hangup on the character in question, more on Improved Precise Shot. I'm ok with it negating Cover and Concealment (alone, i think that'd be worth a feat) I'm just a bit iffy on it completely negating Improved Cover as well.
Improved cover just wasn't common enough to warrant wasting another feat on, so it got merged into this feat.
I agree that treating it as Total Cover was not the best judgment. The better one, if I really wanted to House Rule it, would have been to allow him to fire from farther but just halve the Cover bonus (guys inside getting +4 instead of +8).
It's better, but still nerfing the feat. That comes across to me (and i'm guessing the player) as nerfing their character. It's not merely a raw issue where you're interpreting the rules a certain way, you're actually changing the feat.
|
|
Dude, again, I think you're reading *way* too much into this. The only thing I'd be changing is nerfing how IPS works in regards to Improved Cover. Which, in over a dozen sessions, has only come up a couple times. I don't anticipate it coming up more than a couple the rest of the campaign either. :) So at most, a few guys between now and level 17 get an extra +4 to their AC. Whoopty doo. Considering how few house rules I really have and how little they affect our game already (I go with RAW for 99.9999999% of situations) I can't see this one hurting anything more. Especially as it doesn't just hurt the players. If they are ever hiding behind arrow slits and firing out against enemy rangers with IPS, they'll still get a +4 to their AC in return.
The main benefit of the feat, and the benefit it will see in the vast majority of situations is to ignore regular cover and regular concealment. Things that aren't those two but aren't total cover or total concealment come up pretty rarely.
That wasn't really the issue. This was more in regards to a specific situation. In this case, the archer in question was flying around the second floor of the building. He wanted to look through the arrow slits and fire at anyone inside (whether they were right next to an arrow slit or 10-15 ft away).
Interesting situation. My group dealt with this fort Friday night. While they didn't have an archer, one did rampage through my Legacy of Fire campaign so I understand them well.
Personally, I'd have allowed IPS to ignore all cover from the arrow slit. That's what the feat is for. But, the archer should only have a target every other round as those inside should be using their 5-foot step to move away from the arrow slit after firing on round 1 then moving back to the arrow slit before firing on round 2.
I'd allow the archer to see and shoot within 10ft of the arrow slit, following the diagram below (W=wall, A=arrow slit, y=yes, n=no), but not farther away as slit design and room clutter would block anything further.
yyyyy
nynyn
WAWAW
|
At this point in the campaign your archer should be able to pick off foes behind arrow slits. Let them do what they're good at. I know out breaks your realism meter, but as the GM you are always supposed to lose.
Design encounters that challenge other aspects of his build. Send creatures to harry the archer like air elementals, harpies, or summoned flyers. Get him out of his comfort zone.
--Vrocked n' loaded
Sometimes a DM just has to make a call to keep the game moving. I've had to do that several times and worry about learning the proper rule in the future. Nothing worse than referencing books during a game. Luckily my players know I have to make spur of the moment decisions. There are so many situational rules it is hard to know them all perfectly (Gimme another years as a Pathfinder DM). So I feel for the DM in this situation.