| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have two rules related questions and would like your assistance with interpretation of RAW (Rules As Written), for a Pathfinder Society game:
#1 Question: Does flanking (Core Rulebook page 197) take into account an opponent on higher ground? (page 195)
Example (characters A, C, enemy B): A B C
Characters "A" and "C" are standing and attacking/threatening on opposite sides of enemy "B", however enemy "B" is standing on top of a 5 ft. high pedestal.
Is this still considered flanking despite the elevation difference?
#2 Question: Can a tower shield (Core Rulebook page 153), granting "total cover" in an open doorway, block a spells "line of effect" (minimum opening 1 square foot per Core Rulebook page 215) for a different character, positioned directly behind the tower shield user.
Line of effect (page 215) reads "...a line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier." (like a tower shield positioned in an open doorway)
.........................................................│
.........................................................│
Example (characters A, C, enemy B): A C. . . B
.........................................................│
.........................................................│
Character "C" is using a tower shield for total cover in an open doorway; character "A" is directly behind him, and the enemy spellcaster "B" is 5 ft. above the ground flying and attempting to cast a spell through the door, beyond character "C" (whose using the tower shield for total cover) on character "A"; does the enemy spellcaster "B" have the necessary 1 ft. square opening required for line of effect to character "A", considering the tower shield cover?
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions.
YIDM
1. Have to change my original answer after thinking about this: Flanking requires that you be on opposite sides or corners of a creature's occupied 'cube' of space. In your scenario, A and C don't meet those requirements. Assume that A is on the ground and B is 5' in the air; in order to flank, C would have to be directly opposite A of B and, which would put him 10' in the air.
2. This would require GM ruling. By RAW, a tower shield only provides total cover for the character 'wielding' it. It does not grant total cover for anyone behind that character.
Historically, a tower shield was 'shoulder to knee and shoulder to shoulder' in dimensions - or roughly 4' in height and 1'6" wide. I would rule that when placed in the average doorway there would be sufficient space over the top of the shield to still provide line of effect, even if the caster were not flying (and assuming the caster was not a small [or smaller] creature).
1. Have to change my original answer after thinking about this: Flanking requires that you be on opposite sides or corners of a creature's occupied 'cube' of space. In your scenario, A and C don't meet those requirements. Assume that A is on the ground and B is 5' in the air; in order to flank, C would have to be directly opposite A of B and, which would put him 10' in the air.
2. This would require GM ruling. By RAW, a tower shield only provides total cover for the character 'wielding' it. It does not grant total cover for anyone behind that character.
Historically, a tower shield was 'shoulder to knee and shoulder to shoulder' in dimensions - or roughly 4' in height and 1'6" wide. I would rule that when placed in the average doorway there would be sufficient space over the top of the shield to still provide line of effect, even if the caster were not flying (and assuming the caster was not a small [or smaller] creature).
1. I couldn't find anything in RAW that specifically addressed 3-dimensions...only squares which are map-based and 2-dimensional. So, by RAW it seemed they would be flanking.
2. I would agree it's a GM ruling. I felt it would block line of effect, since it requires a full/clear 1 ft. by 1 ft., my GM disagreed with the situation.
I asked customer service for a ruling on both...so I'll let you know. I was curious what those on the boards thought however.
Re 1: Although I don't remember the exact wording, one of the designers (or an FAQ, not 100% sure which) mentioned that although we normally measure things like radius for spell effects on a two-dimensional plane, it is a three-dimensional effect, meaning the result is a sphere. This is what led me to change my answer.
Re 2: I would agree with your GM. The average height of a door (in a building for medium creatures) would be 6'-7'. 'Full cover' from a tower shield would be achieved by setting the base of the shield on the ground and crouching behind it, which would give it a height of just 4', leaving a 2'- 3'-high opening at the top of the door.
Now, if the character were wielding a wall shield (not defined in the game), it would be a different story. Those were normally the full height of a man - around 6' by 2' - and were used by archers for cover - but because they really were pretty much 'walls' they weren't really carried around a field by warriors.
1: Yes, you are flanked. Even if you count the 3D space, the enemies would have to be really high before it would screw up their flanking ability. And BOTH ENEMIES would have to be high enough that you could see them at the same time to disrupt flanking.
The point of flanking is that you have to stop looking at one to see the other to defend from their attacks. Mechanically, this is achieved by the flanking rules of crossing parallel lines.
2: No, line of effect is not blocked by your body and your tower shield has no effect on helping your friends, that is even listed under the tower shield rules.
Customer Service requested I flag and FAQ it hoping a Dev would respond, so that's what I did.
As far as it goes now -
1. Now, I'm 100% sure that the ruling my GM made was incorrect by RAW. Flanking only considers your place on the map and that you threaten the opponent (disregarding height / elevation difference).
2. I still think a case can be made for this. You need a direct path, that's 1 foot x 1 foot clear to cast a spell throu (per line of effect, core rulebook page 215).
Why? My rationale is like this:
A tower shield is a solid object (and uses the object rules), and would provide partial cover (+4 AC per RAW) to an enemy behind the tower shield user; no different than if he used a table or another object to provide cover. A case could even be made for improved cover at +8 AC depending on the angle of the attackers line throu the doorway and past the tower shield user. A person/creature standing in a 3-ft. wide doorway, with a tower shield put up like a wall (with the user gaining total cover) in the door way, would not leave a FULL CLEAR 1-ft. x 1-ft. path / gap for the enemy spell to go thru from a elevated flying opponent in the next room (the enemy would be looking down, at an angle through the bottom threshold of the door to the tower shields top).
If, per RAW, you require 1-ft. x 1-ft. clear path to your target for line of effect, how can that happen in this situation?
YIDM
If, per RAW, you require 1-ft. x 1-ft. clear path to your target for line of effect, how can that happen in this situation?
Because a tower shield is not 7' tall and 3' wide.
The average height of a door is anywhere from 6'-7' and the average width is roughly 3'.
If you look up tower shields in real life (the basis for the fantasy gear), their height was from shoulder to knee - for the average adult male, roughly 4'; their width was from shoulder to shoulder, or just shy of 2'.
Take a 4' by 2' piece of cardboard and place it in front of your body so that none of your body is visible(the definition of 'total cover') and in the doorway in a way that does not leave at least a 1'x1' opening somewhere in the doorway.
It isn't possible. In order to have total cover, you must* place the shield base on the ground and then crouch behind it. This leaves a 3'x3' gap at the top of the door.
Holding it in any other position does not give you total cover.
*assuming that you are not levitating\flying