here's the scenario:
Level 3 ranger with point blank and precise shot. The enemy is 30 feet away in a straight line in melee combat with the ranger's ally. A second ally of the ranger is directly between the melee fighting and the ranger, blocking the line of sight.
Does the ranger get a penalty to attack from either (a) the ally in melee, or (b) the ally in between him and the enemy blocking the line of sight?
Allies do provide cover for enemies, so both penalties would apply for a total of -8 before considering any feats. The ranger has precise shot so in this case he would ignore the -4 for firing into melee and would have a -4 to hit the creature due to the cover of his ally. Without precise shot the ranger would have a -8 penalty.
Just to be pedantically precise, firing into melee gives a penalty of -4 (which Precise Shot negates). Having Cover from an ally, another enemy, or whatever, gives your opponent an AC bonus of +4.
It's an 8 point swing either way. Just felt like being poindexterish.
What about in the case of lopping an alchemist's bomb over their head... or any thrown weapon for that matter? Since it travels in an arc, do they really provide cover?
|
Elara has a good question but I do not believe stuff like grenade like weapons that are lobbed have alternate rules for determining line of sight. Please point me to them if I am wrong. It sounds like an interesting house rule but again, I do not think the printed rules make an exception. Even if they did you have to ask yourself how fine.do you cut the hair. For.example, I think lo.g bows are meant to be arched in the air instead of shot straight at the target. Do you then prevent them from.being used indoors? How tall of.a ceiling do you need for. Clearance?
Over all, I agree with "Poindexter."
So if there's only 1 ally between you and the enemy, but the ally is in melee combat with the enemy, that's a -8 to attack w/ a bow since he's both covering + involved in melee?
Again, it's a -4 to shoot a creature in melee (threatening or being threatened by an adjacent opponent). It is only a -2 if the target is two sizes larger than its opponent, and 0 if the target is three sizes larger. This penalty is negated by Precise Shot.
If the line of effect between the ranged attacker and his target is blocked by another creature, his target receives a +4 bonus for 'soft cover'. A creature one or more size categories smaller than the target provide cover, but only if the target is within 30 feet of the blocking creature and only if the target is closer to the blocking creature than the attacker.
Paladinguy, basically correct. Just remember that it is not actually a -8 penalty but a -4 penalty and a +4 AC bonus to the target.
This is actually a very important distinction. Penalties stack, even with themselves. Cover bonuses do not stack, take the best only.
Some people may forget that the 'cover penalty' is actually a 'cover bonus' that players have reversed for simplicity.
Also note: your ranger will not suffer the -4 penalty for shooting into melee. He has Precise Shot.
At level 6 (ranger) you should grab Improved Precise Shot and then your ally being between you wont matter at all.
- Gauss
Thanis Kartaleon, you know, I just realized that the -2 for 2 sizes larger overlaps and potentially conflicts with the other section about avoiding the -4 penalty if you can target a section that is 10feet away.
small ally vs large enemy (2 sizes larger): -2 penalty, cannot target a space 10' away from the small ally.
medium ally vs huge enemy (2 sizes larger): no penalty since you can target a space 10' away.
Both are examples of 2 sizes larger but with different results.
Also, can you cite the rule regarding being within 30feet of the blocking creature (the last sentence in your post)?
- Gauss
Thanis, those sound a lot like the rules for shooting over a low wall. I am not sure that they apply to creatures that are not low and that move.
Thanis Kartaleon, you know, I just realized that the -2 for 2 sizes larger overlaps and potentially conflicts with the other section about avoiding the -4 penalty if you can target a section that is 10feet away.
small ally vs large enemy (2 sizes larger): -2 penalty, cannot target a space 10' away from the small ally.
medium ally vs huge enemy (2 sizes larger): no penalty since you can target a space 10' away.
Both are examples of 2 sizes larger but with different results.
Also, can you cite the rule regarding being within 30feet of the blocking creature (the last sentence in your post)?
- Gauss
Actually they don't conflict with any large (or bigger) creatures. If you can target from the sides or the opposite side of the opponent, you can choose the furthest corner/edge which is always 10' away from the small (or bigger) ally. If firing from the same 'side' as the ally (essentially any time the ally is or could be between you and the target), you don't have that option and would suffer the -2.
The last rule they quoted is for low wall/obstacles and shouldn't come into play with soft cover from creatures. (Ninja'd)
Elara has a good question but I do not believe stuff like grenade like weapons that are lobbed have alternate rules for determining line of sight. Please point me to them if I am wrong. It sounds like an interesting house rule but again, I do not think the printed rules make an exception. Even if they did you have to ask yourself how fine.do you cut the hair. For.example, I think lo.g bows are meant to be arched in the air instead of shot straight at the target. Do you then prevent them from.being used indoors? How tall of.a ceiling do you need for. Clearance?
Over all, I agree with "Poindexter."
Yeah, there's nothing in the rules for anything other than straight-line ranged attacks. Alchemists' bombs aren't "lobbed" in any mechanical sense and shots from a longbow are similarly not "arced".
Skylancer, my example showed the 'conflict'. My example is based on shooting from the same side as the ally. The medium shooter can pick a spot that is 10' from his ally. Meanwhile the small shooter cannot. Both are 2 sizes larger.
So, for the medium creature fighting the huge creature, which rule gets used? The 10' = no penalty or the -2 penalty rule? My answer would be the lesser penalty (10' = no penalty).
Regarding the quote, I thought it was the low wall/obstacles rule. I wanted to see if Thanis was citing that rule and why he thought it applied to soft cover.
- Gauss
The Low Obstacles and Cover section references "a wall no higher than half your height" as an example, but does not explicitly state that such an obstacle must be inanimate. And it makes sense for a Medium creature to have an easier time shooting over the head of a Small creature - for example, a huntsman shooting overhead his hound.
Skylancer, my example showed the 'conflict'. My example is based on shooting from the same side as the ally. The medium shooter can pick a spot that is 10' from his ally. Meanwhile the small shooter cannot. Both are 2 sizes larger.
So, for the medium creature fighting the huge creature, which rule gets used? The 10' = no penalty or the -2 penalty rule? My answer would be the lesser penalty (10' = no penalty).
Regarding the quote, I thought it was the low wall/obstacles rule. I wanted to see if Thanis was citing that rule and why he thought it applied to soft cover.
- Gauss
Firing from the same 'side' as your ally (which is who matters, not the person taking the shot), you are unable to target the rear points of the larger creature on flat land as it is esssentially blocking line of effect/sight to them:
Small creature in combat with large creature, the -4 penalty is applied, the general rule has a provision that lowers that penalty to -2. You are unable to target a point 10' from the ally so you are unable to negate the penalty totally due to another specific rule. End result -2 to hit the large creature.
Medium creature in combat with an adjacent huge creature, the -4 penalty is applied, the general rule has a provision that lowers that penalty to -2. You are able to target a point 10' away from the medium creature (the top most edge of the huge creature is 10' over the space of the medium creature). This means another specific rule comes into play which totally negates the penalty for firing at a target in melee. End result is no penalty for firing at the huge creature.
Again, I'm not seeing any conflict. We have a 'general' rule, with provisions (penalty and lower penalty if conditions are met). Then we have a specific rule which negates the penalty applied by the general rule.
@ the obstacle/low wall rule. Going to reread them, but fairly certain they don't apply in this regard.
What you call the 'specific rule' does not state it is an exception. There are two rules, neither of which are listed as taking precedence. So yes, they are in conflict. Personally, I resolve it the same way you do but the rules are still not clear which has precedence.
Some people will say it is the size difference rule. Some will say it is the 10' away rule. Without one stating it is an exception there will always be a perceived conflict at some tables.
- Gauss