Yeah, he was looking to see if cover was applied for a caster. But I see the confusion.
Just figured out what happened. I meant to put my diagram in THIS THREAD.
|
I don't think it is the rules as-written, but I think it achieves what they almost certainly intend.It does seem to solve some issues, but I think the following one might still be iffy.
A0
WFA=Archer, 0=Open, W=Wall, F=Fighter
If we go by enclosed area, then the archer has cover relative to the fighter, but fighter would have no cover relative to the archer!
Yep. And not only by the enclosed area diagram (nice too, btw), but also by the written text, unless you see tracing a ranged cover line down the wall itself to be something that provides cover.
I don't think this would pass the smell test for me personally at least.
Ranged combat and melee combat don't use the same standard. Arrow slits come to mind.
|
|
I don't think it is the rules as-written, but I think it achieves what they almost certainly intend.It does seem to solve some issues, but I think the following one might still be iffy.
A0
WFA=Archer, 0=Open, W=Wall, F=Fighter
If we go by enclosed area, then the archer has cover relative to the fighter, but fighter would have no cover relative to the archer!
I don't think this would pass the smell test for me personally at least.
What Celanian said makes sense to me. In real life, I would much rather be the fighter swinging the sword at the adjacent guy around the corner instead of the archer firing at the adjacent guy around the corner. The archer is just asking to loose an arm.
Paizo decided to determine cover for adjacent melee attackers and adjacent range attackers differently, but I don't think they took into account adjacent ranged attackers.
In my mind, it would make more sense that ranged attackers that are adjacent to their target would determine cover in the same was as melee attackers that are adjacent to their target.
It makes sense to me in that the Archer is able to shoot around the corner. Due to the corner to target sighting (which makes sense to me) that negates the fighter's cover. However, when it is the fighter's turn the Fighter has to try to hit the Archer while he is taking cover.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RedDogMT, you are correct they are trying to 'kill each other at the same time'. But at the same time that might still involve a lot of dodging, thrusts, parries, and all the stuff the game only halfway mentions if at all.
I can easily see the fighter swinging and the archer dodging behind the corner then popping out to shoot.
However, Pathfinder is not really a simulation and trying to interpret it as one invariably shows why it is not. Making sense of the rules in real life terms will often cause them to fail to make sense.
Thus, I deal with the rules as a set of rules and not an attempt to model reality in the form of a game.
- Gauss
|
|
Hey Gauss. You have one of the more grounded voices on these boards and I respect that. I think we have differing opinions.
I do agree that the rules of the game cannot mimic reality, but they do try to represent reality to a certain extent.
I just think that the archer would be at more of a disadvantage than the sword-wielding fighter in this situation, but the game rules do not currently reflect that.
As a line has no thickness, it cannot overlap. It can only cross or not cross. It cannot do both. It is impossible.I would disagree. Imagine a cartesian coordinate system, and two line segments:
(0,0)-(0,1)
(0,0)-(0,2)The first line is on exactly the same points as the first half of the second, and they overlap.
As to your grid graphic: I think you have a really good idea here, which I quite like, which is that we draw the lines, but instead of looking at whether the lines themselves intersect things which would block you, we look at the space described by those lines. That is a really excellent solution to the problem -- it gets the right results in all the obvious cases.
I don't think it is the rules as-written, but I think it achieves what they almost certainly intend.
For something to overlap it must have surface area. A line has no second dimension. It has no surface area. It cannot overlap.
The lines in your example cross at (0,0). This fits with my statement that lines cannot overlap only cross or not cross.
And before it comes up, the line segments (0,2)-(0,3) and (0,1)-(0,4) also do not overlap, they are from the same line.
The shaded are doesn't count as RAW, and isn't really need to check for cover. My point of showing it was to show how the same line can show cover or no cover, as in grid two.
There is not a yellow line and a blue line, there is an invisible line between them. One side provides cover, the other does not.
It only matters because we are getting into the nitty picky area of the game. This level of precision is not required. But I assure you, the math proves that the original situation does not provide cover.
As a line has no thickness, it cannot overlap. It can only cross or not cross. It cannot do both. It is impossible.Your own quote contradicts the graphs you created. A line has no thickness yet you're trying to use the thickness of the pixels to try and prove your point.
If the pixels were infinitesimally thin like they should be, then you still get the contradiction between the 2 situations. A thick line such as dental floss used to draw the line on an actual battle map will definitely cross a wall or corner since it "spreads" on both sides of the line it is supposed to represent, not just one side as in your graph.
You do know that it impossible to draw a one dimensional line, right? It can only be depicted as an edge. If you look at the black pixels in the zoomed in section of grid-1, the left/lower edge of those pixels is the only way to "see" the line.
The line is between the yellow shaded area and the non-shaded area in grid 1
In grid 2 it is between the yellow shaded area and the blue shaded area.
In the 3D depiction that you describe, you are correct about the dental floss. On a battlemat, that would represent about 1/4" in the game world. Do you really think that the limits of the 3D representation that only shows a 1/4" pebble that does not exist in the actual 1D theory used, should really provide a 20% penalty to the attack roll?
You know, I never even considered lines sharing more than one point in this argument other than being the same exact line.
By line, I mean one that goes on forever and is completely straight. Curved lines have no place in this debate, wouldn't you agree? And if we are only discussing straight lines, if they share more than one point, it is actually the same line, isn't it? (line, not line segment)
RedDog, that seems logical, and common sense would state that you are correct. But it can't be factual. If a wall only sticks out 2' from the edge of the square, it may not be crossed by any of the other lines used to check for cover. But I am sure we agree it would count as cover. Grid-3.
I get the argument that counters mine. It is the same problem with the terms midnight and noon. Neither of these concepts is actually a measureable amount of time. Midnight is the time after PM and before AM. Noon is the time after AM and before PM. They are both an exact instant that cannot be measured in length.
And how can a line cross a boundary and not cross a boundary if it has no thickness? I get it. But even though it has no thickness, the only practical way to use it to prove/disprove cover is to use a side of the line.
And by the strictest reading of RAW, the yellow shaded area of Grid-3 offers no cover unless you count the lower edge as crossing the boundary.
And the blue area is only clear of color if you do not count it as crossing the boundary.
So I guess at this point we are to choose from the following options:
1) House rule that my shaded area is what should be checked.
2) House rule that we have to use a side of a line, not the line itself.
3) Follow RAW and in addition decide that passing through the vertex counts as a barrier.
4) Follow RAW and in addition decide that passing through the vertex does not count as a barrier.
While it was never my intent when I drew the examples, I think I am going to go with option 1.
Do you see any other options besides these 4?
And these are not fail proof either. In option 1, a 1' diameter tree would count as cover. So would a 1" diameter tree. So you would have to decide what type of object is actually strong enough to provide said cover.
If you used any other option, the exact placement of the tree would decide if it counted as cover (still if you decided it was strong enough). If it missed any of the 4 lines used to check for cover, it would not count.
Just move the wall from Grid-3 up 1/16" and it won't count as cover using options 2, 3 or 4 as none of the lines would cross it.
But again, I think our precision is getting far to exact for any benefit of the game.
Great debate though. I find it very interesting.
Celanian, while you diagram is correct I disagree with it being regular cover. They can only see a tiny fraction of the target. As a GM I would rule that this is Improved Cover.
- Gauss
Strict RAW doesn't work, usually never does. We proved it. You have to make an educated decision based on the situation and what you can gather what the rules intend.
In this case, they intend full cover for all parties.