Firstly, does cover count as a type of concealment? Or does Concealment count as a type of Cover?
Secondly, if you add the magical ability of "Seeking" to a bow, does it ignore ALL cover and/or concealment, including that provided by enemies in hand-to-hand combat with your allies?
Cover counts as concealment as well (since you cannot be seen if you hide behind a wall), but not the other way around (you can hide behind a bush and not be seen, but it provides no protective bonus from ranged attacks).
Seeking negates ANY miss chance, however, the attacker must aim at the correct square (in the case of invisibility, for instance) to gain the effect. So I would say that enemies in hand-to-hand with allies would not benefit from being in melee.
Brox RedGloves wrote: Cover counts as concealment as well (since you cannot be seen if you hide behind a wall), but not the other way around (you can hide behind a bush and not be seen, but it provides no protective bonus from ranged attacks).
Seeking negates ANY miss chance, however, the attacker must aim at the correct square (in the case of invisibility, for instance) to gain the effect. So I would say that enemies in hand-to-hand with allies would not benefit from being in melee.
Would you then agree that "Seeking" essentially makes the Feats "Precise Shot" & "Improved Precise Shot" un-needed and possibly irrelavant?
Brox RedGloves wrote: Cover counts as concealment as well (since you cannot be seen if you hide behind a wall), but not the other way around (you can hide behind a bush and not be seen, but it provides no protective bonus from ranged attacks).
Seeking negates ANY miss chance, however, the attacker must aim at the correct square (in the case of invisibility, for instance) to gain the effect. So I would say that enemies in hand-to-hand with allies would not benefit from being in melee.
In theory, you can have cover without concealment. If you were behind a transparent wall, for example. Wall of Force, maybe?
Quote: Seeking: Only ranged weapons can have the seeking ability. The weapon veers toward its target, negating any miss chances that would otherwise apply, such as from concealment. The wielder still has to aim the weapon at the right square. Arrows mistakenly shot into an empty space, for example, do not veer and hit invisible enemies, even if they are nearby. Seeking negates "miss chances". By RAW, it does not negate Cover penalties. They are AC bonuses, not miss chances.
That seems odd from the description. It veers toward parts of the target you can't see, but not around obstacles?
Edit: Seeking does not negate soft cover from people in melee.
Precise shot and Improved Precise Shot are still relevant.
Precise shot only helps against Cover. Seeking helps against concealment (or other miss chances). Improved Precise Shot works against both, but not total cover or concealment. Seeking would work against total concealment.
thejeff wrote:
Precise shot and Improved Precise Shot are still relevant.
Precise shot only helps against Cover. Seeking helps against concealment (or other miss chances). Improved Precise Shot works against both, but not total cover or concealment. Seeking would work against total concealment.
Apologies if I seem incredibly dense, but it sounds like you are saying that "Seeking" would make "Precise Shot" unnecessary, but "Improved Precise Shot" would still be needed to ignore ALL the problems of shooting into melee (and since "Precise Shot" is a prereq. of "Improved Precise Shot" you might be flummoxed anyways).
WascallyWabbit wrote: thejeff wrote:
Precise shot and Improved Precise Shot are still relevant.
Precise shot only helps against Cover. Seeking helps against concealment (or other miss chances). Improved Precise Shot works against both, but not total cover or concealment. Seeking would work against total concealment.
Apologies if I seem incredibly dense, but it sounds like you are saying that "Seeking" would make "Precise Shot" unnecessary, but "Improved Precise Shot" would still be needed to ignore ALL the problems of shooting into melee (and since "Precise Shot" is a prereq. of "Improved Precise Shot" you might be flummoxed anyways). Precise Shot negates the -4 Attack penalty for firing into melee.
If that's all that's going on, nothing else is needed. Seeking does not help with this, since it's an Attack penalty, not a miss chance.
Improved Precise Shot also does not help, if no one has cover or concealment.
Simple Example: X is you, E is Enemy, A is ally.
X ---------->E
A
Target is in melee with a friendly, but has no cover or concealment.
It's not clear to me if Soft Cover from firing into melee past an ally stacks with the firing into melee:
X ----------->AE
Target is in melee and is covered by the Ally.
-4 to attack roll from being in melee and +4 AC bonus from Soft Cover?
Precise shot would remove the -4 penalty.
Improved Precise Shot would remove the +4 AC bonus.
It's also not clear if, in that situation, the Ally would also provide concealment. I'd say not, since it's never explicitly stated like it is with Soft Cover.
If the GM rules that way, then you would have, in addition to the attack penalty and possible AC bonus, a 20% miss chance from concealment.
Either Seeking or Improved Precise Shot would remove that.
Improved Precise Shot also helps against anyone with partial Cover or Concealment from other sources, walls, fog, undergrowth, etc.
Seeking helps with Concealment from those sources, but also helps with total concealment, such as invisibility, if you know which square they're in.
These rules are ugly. Partly because they never actually define what provides Cover and what provides Concealment and how they stack.
thejeff wrote: It's not clear to me if Soft Cover from firing into melee past an ally stacks with the firing into melee It doesn't 'stack' really, because it's a completely different mechanic. They can both apply, though.
[Archer] ---> [Ally] [Orc]
If the archer shoots at Orc, who is engaged in melee with Ally, then the archer has a -4 penalty to attack and the Orc has a +4 bonus to AC from cover.
Lets say the next round the Orc drops a smokestick. This gives Orc total concealment from the Archer (and normal concealment from the ally).
Ally shouts out "He's still in the same place, shoot him!"
Archer can target the square Orc is in.
If Archer has precise shot, he negates the -4 penalty to attack from shooting into melee.
If Archer has Improved Precise Shot, he negates the +4 bonus to AC from the Orc having soft cover.
If Archer has a Seeking bow, he negates the 50% miss chance from total concealment.
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: It's not clear to me if Soft Cover from firing into melee past an ally stacks with the firing into melee It doesn't 'stack' really, because it's a completely different mechanic. They can both apply, though.
[Archer] ---> [Ally] [Orc]
If the archer shoots at Orc, who is engaged in melee with Ally, then the archer has a -4 penalty to attack and the Orc has a +4 bonus to AC from cover.
Lets say the next round the Orc drops a smokestick. This gives Orc total concealment from the Archer (and normal concealment from the ally).
Ally shouts out "He's still in the same place, shoot him!"
Archer can target the square Orc is in.
If Archer has precise shot, he negates the -4 penalty to attack from shooting into melee.
If Archer has Improved Precise Shot, he negates the +4 bonus to AC from the Orc having soft cover.
If Archer has a Seeking bow, he negates the 50% miss chance from total concealment. Does the Ally grant the orc any concealment, just by standing in front of him, or only cover?
Grick wrote: thejeff wrote: It's not clear to me if Soft Cover from firing into melee past an ally stacks with the firing into melee It doesn't 'stack' really, because it's a completely different mechanic. They can both apply, though.
[Archer] ---> [Ally] [Orc]
If the archer shoots at Orc, who is engaged in melee with Ally, then the archer has a -4 penalty to attack and the Orc has a +4 bonus to AC from cover.
Lets say the next round the Orc drops a smokestick. This gives Orc total concealment from the Archer (and normal concealment from the ally).
Ally shouts out "He's still in the same place, shoot him!"
Archer can target the square Orc is in.
If Archer has precise shot, he negates the -4 penalty to attack from shooting into melee.
If Archer has Improved Precise Shot, he negates the +4 bonus to AC from the Orc having soft cover.
If Archer has a Seeking bow, he negates the 50% miss chance from total concealment. That's pretty much what I thought.
Before he drops the smokestick, does the Orc have concealment from the archer, because he's behind the Ally?
Quote: To determine whether your target has concealment 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 provides concealment, the target has concealment. Nothing I've seen actually defines "square or border that provides concealment." Do creatures count?
If partly behind a wall, he'd have both +4 AC bonus and a 20% miss chance, right?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cover only.
Concealment makes the target objectively harder to see. By this, I mean that regardless of the direction, the target is more difficult to see than if he not concealed. Invisibility, darkness, fog, smoke all grant the target concealment (or its big brother, total concealment).
Cover means that there is a barrier interposed between you and the target. Something you might hit instead of the target.
So, if it's something you might hit instead of the target, the target has cover. If something is just making it harder for you to see the target, it's concealment.
thejeff wrote: Nothing I've seen actually defines "square or border that provides concealment." Do creatures count? The rules don't specify. I've never seen it run that way.
Chemlak wrote: Cover only.
Concealment makes the target objectively harder to see. By this, I mean that regardless of the direction, the target is more difficult to see than if he not concealed. Invisibility, darkness, fog, smoke all grant the target concealment (or its big brother, total concealment).
Cover means that there is a barrier interposed between you and the target. Something you might hit instead of the target.
So, if it's something you might hit instead of the target, the target has cover. If something is just making it harder for you to see the target, it's concealment.
The concealment granting effect doesn't have to be on the target, just between you and the target.
Quote: To determine whether your target has concealment 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 provides concealment, the target has concealment. But that's sort of a side issue.
I think I prefer your interpretation to having both penalties apply, though it seems a little odd that it's sometimes better to be partly behind fog than partly behind a wall. (20% miss chance will be better in some cases than a +4 AC)
Is there any explicit RAW that says that cover cannot grant concealment?
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Only that objects which provide cover (low walls, walls, characters) are explicitly called out in the cover rules, while they are not mentioned at all in the concealment rules. Indeed, the concealment rules explicitly refer to "effects" that grant concealment, which are then specified under the specific spell or environment entry.
thejeff wrote: WascallyWabbit wrote: thejeff wrote:
Precise shot and Improved Precise Shot are still relevant.
Precise shot only helps against Cover. Seeking helps against concealment (or other miss chances). Improved Precise Shot works against both, but not total cover or concealment. Seeking would work against total concealment.
Apologies if I seem incredibly dense, but it sounds like you are saying that "Seeking" would make "Precise Shot" unnecessary, but "Improved Precise Shot" would still be needed to ignore ALL the problems of shooting into melee (and since "Precise Shot" is a prereq. of "Improved Precise Shot" you might be flummoxed anyways). Precise Shot negates the -4 Attack penalty for firing into melee.
If that's all that's going on, nothing else is needed. Seeking does not help with this, since it's an Attack penalty, not a miss chance.
Improved Precise Shot also does not help, if no one has cover or concealment.
Simple Example: X is you, E is Enemy, A is ally.
X ---------->E
A
Target is in melee with a friendly, but has no cover or concealment.
It's not clear to me if Soft Cover from firing into melee past an ally stacks with the firing into melee:
X ----------->AE
Target is in melee and is covered by the Ally.
-4 to attack roll from being in melee and +4 AC bonus from Soft Cover?
Precise shot would remove the -4 penalty.
Improved Precise Shot would remove the +4 AC bonus.
It's also not clear if, in that situation, the Ally would also provide concealment. I'd say not, since it's never explicitly stated like it is with Soft Cover.
If the GM rules that way, then you would have, in addition to the attack penalty and possible AC bonus, a 20% miss chance from concealment.
Either Seeking or Improved Precise Shot would remove that.
Improved Precise Shot also helps against anyone with partial Cover or Concealment from other sources, walls, fog, undergrowth, etc.
Seeking helps with Concealment from those sources, but also helps with... Okay. Cheers buddy. That helped me understand it a lot better. Thanks.
Chemlak wrote: Only that objects which provide cover (low walls, walls, characters) are explicitly called out in the cover rules, while they are not mentioned at all in the concealment rules. Indeed, the concealment rules explicitly refer to "effects" that grant concealment, which are then specified under the specific spell or environment entry. That seems to make sense. Only spells or environments provide concealment. With one assumes, common sense additions: A curtain for example could conceal, but not cover.
So going back to the original question:
Seeking does not substitute for Precise Shot at all. It substitutes from Improved Precise Shot only for concealment not for cover.
For firing into melee, Precise Shot negates the base -4 penalty. Improved Precise Shot negates the +4 AC Bonus if your ally is between you and the target.
Seeking only helps if the target does something to conceal himself. And is only better than Improved Precise Shot when the target is totally concealed.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
