How many people are aware of this rule found in the forest environment section of the CRB:
Trees: The most important terrain element in a forest is the trees, obviously. A creature standing in the same square as a tree gains partial cover, which grants a +2 bonus to Armor Class and a +1 bonus on Reflex saves. The presence of a tree doesn't otherwise affect a creature's fighting space, because it's assumed that the creature is using the tree to its advantage when it can.
Well... I made a ruling last session, or it could have been two sessions ago, that this applied to walls too. My thinking is that if you are next to a well/sharing the space, I don't see how a tree and a wall would be any different. At least that is what I told myself. I couldn't remember the exact rule, all I remembered is the part of having your back against something solid how it could help.
I just looked it back up again and now I am questioning my rule. Is this a corner case? This hard to find rule isn't mentioned anywhere else, so I am thinking it is really not something anyone ever uses.
It does give reason to have your back against the wall, tactically, although it doesn't make a whole ton of sense the deeper I think about it (fighter against the ropes).
Maybe I should have put this in the advice or the house rule section, but I am first more interested in the reasoning behind the rule.
I am not sure how you can even share the same space as a tree, although I see the fluff in using the branches as a point of defense.
What do you guys think?
I think the idea is not that you're fighting with your back to the tree, but with the tree between you and the BBEG -- hence the partial cover. So fighting with your back to the wall would not have the same effect.
As to how you can share the same space as a tree,... well, that depends upon the tree, obviously. There are trees known that have trunk diameters of nearly 10m, so that kind of a tree wouldn't even fit into a 5 foot square. There are also trees that have branches that nearly touch the ground (a typical Christmas tree, for example) that would make it difficult to occupy the square. But I've also got a tree right in front of my house that has a trunk around 60cm around and its lowest branch is about 1.8 meters off the ground, so I can easily "hide" behind the tree and use it as an impromptu tower shield.
Having your back against a wall is traditionally a very bad thing, because you can no longer create space in an engagement - thus the term 'back against the wall' meaning 'in a bad situation with no out'.
Presumably the idea behind the tree is that the opponent is behind it stabbing around it (IE putting it between them and an opponent), not with their back to it. There's absolutely no precedent to carry this over to walls -- but I could see it making sense if an opponent was fighting from behind some obstacle like a statue in a courtyard.
Having your back against a wall is traditionally a very bad thing...
Right. I think so too.
I think the idea is not that you're fighting with your back to the tree, but with the tree between you and the BBEG -- hence the partial cover.
Hmm... I hadn't considered that, I am still having trouble visualizing that. I supposed if the tree were very thin, but wouldn't you have movement penalties to avoid getting tangled in all of those branches?
It seems that I am overthinking this rule and maybe it is best left ignored.
A reason I thought it might be applicable is you always see the brute in the movies have trouble hitting the agile fighter against the wall, not because he dodged, but because his sword/axe hit the wall or got lodged in the door.
Thematic, but maybe not in the way this rule is trying to emulate.
I think the idea is not that you're fighting with your back to the tree, but with the tree between you and the BBEG -- hence the partial cover.Hmm... I hadn't considered that, I am still having trouble visualizing that. I supposed if the tree were very thin, but wouldn't you have movement penalties to avoid getting tangled in all of those branches?
Depends, as I said, on the type of tree. Most trees don't have many branches within easy reach of the ground. In a forest in particular, the low branches tend to die and break off because they don't get enough light. The effect is that the crown of most trees tends to start well above ground level.
I don't think a wall is analogous to a tree, but I'd probably allow a character to use a column or similar object.
I agree. Maybe it is the act of moving around something that allows you to get the partial cover, but that opens up all sorts of other questions about conditions and obstacles.
As much as the comments above are probably correct, I am still having trouble reconciling branches getting in the way of the defender as much as the attacker. I see that as a zero sum gain.
I should probably ignore the branches all together in this discussion, it is not helping me at all.
The Partial Cover for Sharing a Space with a Tree is seemingly based on "Sub-square positioning" not existing in the game: Cover is determined normally in terms of other squares, but the game gives the defender the benefit of the doubt as to any Cover they COULD possibly gain from SUB-square features, not paying attention to a particular orientation within the square because that isn't tracked.
To some extent, that is down to movement within a square being handwaved by the game, and thus this rule is approximating 'dancing' around a tree to use it as a 'shield' vs. any attacks that might come... Although since it also applies if you are paralyzed, it fundamentally does come down to giving the benefit of the doubt to the defender and assuming that sharing space with a tree like this does impede any attacker. (If you were Paralyzed, then your own melee attacks should plausibly also suffer this Partial Cover penalty... Strangely, Paralyzed characters don't often tend to make melee attacks.)
I WOULDN'T apply this to just 'having your back against a wall', or indeed a very large tree like a sequoia which is basically like a wall.
When the rule says "standing in the same square as a tree", I read that to exclude trees taking up multiple squares, as you can't be standing in ALL of the area occupied by the tree.
For those objects, you CAN unambiguously move to the other side of the object by moving to another square on that side, where you would receive total Cover.
Ambiguity about Sub-Square positioning just doesn't change anything as to what side of the object you are, unlike an object that you could move around within one 5' square.
If there are parts of the tree akin to a small tree in themselves, e.g. some branch or descending root, those could separately count as trees in their own right for this,
and it seems reasonable to also apply this rule to slender columns that one could share space with, e.g. a fire station's pole or slender statue.
This rule also seem reasonable to apply when smaller creatures are in the square of a larger ones, they could be presumed to "dance around" the creature whose square they are sharing to gain Partial Soft Cover from all directions. ...Though again, if the larger creature takes up MULTIPLE square, then I would just determine cover more conventionally... e.g., if a Fairy is the Easterly square of a Large animal spanning 2 squares (in one axis), the Large animal can be presumed to be on West side of that Easterly square since it needs to also be in the Western square... Thus the Fairy shouldn't get Cover vs. attacks from an Easterly direction, but would from Westerly directions.
The game doesn't some aspects related to Sharing Squares very well:
For example, multiple Tiny Invisible creatures in one square: the attacker rolls miss chance, but who is hit? The game doesn't actually tell you how that is resolved.
With no facing, all aspects are equally plausible... So you can never hide an object behind your back?
Hmm... I hadn't considered that, I am still having trouble visualizing that. I supposed if the tree were very thin, but wouldn't you have movement penalties to avoid getting tangled in all of those branches?
Movement within a square is handwaved, it doesn't matter mechanically, so penalties to that are irrelevant. If the branches/whatever are such that moving THRU this square to another one is difficult, then the square should already count as Difficult Terrain.
