By the rule you quoted, yes. Even from the most adventitious corner of your square, the line will pass through the wall for at least one of the corners in the targets square.
I take it back. Sorry, I misread your diagram.
I agree with Maezer. Also, it seems that the two diagrams differ. I assume this was intentional?
The venture-captain has it wrong. Your second example is the perfect illustration for why there is no cover granted. The character in the first example is able to shoot from the same corner of a square as the character in the second example. Cover from ranged weapons is not determined from center square to center square. It is from corner of square to corners of target.
In the first example, the Attacker can shoot at the Target without cover penalty. If the Target wanted to shoot back at the Attacker, there would be cover involved. Think of the archer leaning out around the corner for his shot, but putting his back up against the wall when the Target retaliates.
|
Think of the archer leaning out around the corner for his shot, but putting his back up against the wall when the Target retaliates.I know, but then I had another player/GM try and tell me how hard it is to shoot around a corner. I suppose he's got a lot of experience shooting a composite bow around corners and down hallways at monsters in his real life.
In the first situation, you are NOT shooting around a corner. You are standing at the opening and shooting down a corridor. In other words, you and your target are on the same side of the wall = no corner.
Think of the archer leaning out around the corner for his shot, but putting his back up against the wall when the Target retaliates.I know, but then I had another player/GM try and tell me how hard it is to shoot around a corner. I suppose he's got a lot of experience shooting a composite bow around corners and down hallways at monsters in his real life.
My only concern is if the VC has a different understanding. Right now I'm operating on hearsay, so I'll wait till I talk to him to see if there's a difference of interpretation.
I'm sure he is able to accurately shoot 2-4 shots/6 seconds like a +6/+1 archer with rapid shot and multishot too.
In other words: This is a fantasy game. While there are some relations to the real world for consistency's sake, some people just want to be legolas.
.
.
.
.
Let's say you have this configuration:
oooooT
AWWWWW
oWWWWWA = Attacker
T = Target
W = Stone WallThe cover rules state this:
Does the target T have any cover from A if A is using a ranged weapon?Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
No, target T does not have cover from A if A is using a ranged weapon. Player A picks the northeast corner (shared with the hard corner) and draws four lines from that corner to all four corners of target T. None of those lines pass through a wall or any other obstruction (passing along a wall is not passing through a wall)
Page 194 of the Core Rulebook describes this situation with the ogre and Merisiel. The ogre has melee cover from Merisiel because of the hard corner but Merisiel does not have cover from the ogre around the hard corner because the ogre has reach and resolves his attacks as if with a ranged weapon. RAW, plain and simple.
|
|
Venture captains are not necessarily strong on game rules. Some know this, some don't. However, they tend to garner a bit of respect, which can result in rules taking on a bit of rules virus flavor in a given area. I've played with something like 50-60 GMs in 3.5, where the rule for ranged cover is the same, and PF. I have had exactly one person apply a penalty for the situation you are describing, and it was to claim total cover for the shot. I played an archer in Living Greyhawk for some 60 sessions.
Page 194 of the Core Rulebook describes this situation with the ogre and Merisiel. The ogre has melee cover from Merisiel because of the hard corner but Merisiel does not have cover from the ogre around the hard corner because the ogre has reach and resolves his attacks as if with a ranged weapon. RAW, plain and simple.Yeah, I brought up that exact section in the rulebook but the players did not seem to understand that it applied. The rationale was probably that the ogre can choose a square that is not on the corner. As I believe I mentioned, there is some pervasive mentality that the physical requirements of firing a bow around a corner are imposing some penalty.
I really hope to avoid this being a problem once I talk to the VC...
Unless you're trying to overturn a ruling that caused a PC death, it's likely better to just live and let live.
Unless you're trying to overturn a ruling that caused a PC death, it's likely better to just live and let live.If this was a house game, I'd agree with you. But it's PFS (RAW..no house ruling) and it will affect all the local games I play in. Plus, it's not even a discretionary rule. This is something that should not be subject to table variation.
Riiiight...
Well, have fun winning the battle.
It really is a very anti-intuitive rule. If you were one step back (down), T would have Total cover, even if he were half as far down the hall. One step up, and then no cover at all. Intuitively, you'd draw the line from the center of the square (like you do for Flank). But that's not how it works, and it probably makes realistic & cinematic sense for it to work the way it does. Still an oddity.
|
The mindset you have to consider is that when you take your attack, you effectively move out of your "square" and into a "corner". When you do that, your mini is in between squares and there's no hard cover there.
The target has no way to get such cover from any corner they try to move into - they can't move into a side of a wall.
Your VC is thinking of this as not being able to move into the hard corner of the corner of the wall.
He's partly correct in that thinking, but if you hit a wall and can't move into that exact corner, you're going to move to the next best spot - think the line between those two corners - where you can still shoot and the target still doesn't have cover.
Remember, those corners, squares, lines don't actually exist; they're just the boundaries of where you can move, and if you can move to a corner, it means your mini steps partially outside of it.
|
Apologies for resurrecting the thread, but I have a question related to this. What if the corner square was an ally, would he provide soft cover to the Target?
Example:
OOTO
PAXX
OOXX
T = Target
P = Player
A = Ally
X = Wall
O = Space
Second question, what if the Player was using a reach weapon? I assume the rules would be the same as ranged.
Thanks in advance.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem bleeding obvious that there is no cover right? Except by the RAW, any line you draw from any corner is going to slide along the border of one of the walls, resulting in cover.
"Slide along" =/= "pass through".
"Border" and "square" are part of the same sentence, sharing the requirement of a line "passing through" them in order to create cover.
The line in the example passes through several borders, but the borders passed through are the vertical ones, none of which are providing cover. The border where the wall is (the horizontal one) is not being passed through.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
interpretation that Slide along =/= pass through
"Slide along =/= pass through" is not a rules interpretation, it's English literacy. Unless/until the rules define "pass through" as a special game term, then it's just the English meaning of the phrase "pass through", because the game is written in English. Since "pass through" means to go from one side of something to the other without going around it, any reasonable person can already determine whether or not a given line passes through something.