Subject is pretty self explanatory. We're attempting to run our current game as close to RAW as possible (something we've never done before) and as far as I can tell there is nothing stopping an archer from firing down a hallway full of PCs at an enemy.
(Waste of space for pic)
E = Enemy, A = Archer, P = PC
E
P
P
P
A
If the archer in that diagram fires, does the enemy get any bonus other than Soft-Cover? The archer has Precise Shot so firing into melee isn't a concern here.
|
Creatures do not normally provide total cover, just soft cover, so I'd say no. Unless the archer has Improved Precise Shot, he's going to get -4 from soft cover. A GM might even add an additional -2 circumstance penalty to the attack given the amount of soft cover, but I wouldn't normally bother.
If the corridor is 5' wide and there's a large creature squeezing down it, I'd be inclined to say you can't shoot past it. But that's situational.
Hm, actually after a bunch of searching around and reading a bunch.
With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight.
Now as far as I can tell that is the only mention of line of sight in the book, but there is another term brought up called line of effect which it says is like line of sight.
A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
Now taking a look at the cover section we see:
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
Underneath that soft-cover is listed, implying it blocks line of effect. And since soft-cover isn't fog, darkness, or another factor that would limit normal sight, it would block line of sight. Which means in the above scenario I posted, E would have total cover from A.
|
|
Your reasoning is flawed at so many levels and I don't have the time to straighten them out (as I need to wrap presents for my son's birthday party in the morning). Let's just use the old stand-by of showing that your reasoning results in absurdity:
By your reasoning, soft cover does not provide a +4 AC, but simply blocks ranged attacks.
That is absurd on so many levels and contradicted by the +4 AC granted by soft cover. Why does the target get +4 AC if it can't be attacked?
I think you missed the "OR" in your rules quote. It says it blocks line of effect OR provides cover.
If the blocking device is impassable, like a wall, it blocks line of effect. If it is passable, like a person, it provides cover.
Your reasoning is flawed at so many levels and I don't have the time to straighten them out (as I need to wrap presents for my son's birthday party in the morning). Let's just use the old stand-by of showing that your reasoning results in absurdity:
By your reasoning, soft cover does not provide a +4 AC, but simply blocks ranged attacks.
That is absurd on so many levels and contradicted by the +4 AC granted by soft cover. Why does the target get +4 AC if it can't be attacked?
Sorry, I didn't complete my thought. =p
The difference is that when any corner of your square to any corner of your target's square, it provides cover. What I meant was in the hallway scenario I posted above, all of the archer's corners to all of the target's corners are blocked. Which would block line of sight?
PCs or NPCs can provide soft cover. Not break line of sight or provide total cover.
@Ssyvan: I don't know what you're getting at, get more structure in that text. What does "line of effect" have to do with anything? Ranged weapons, as you quote, don't use it. There is nothing that you quote that states anything about total cover or breaking line of sight.
The reason I brought up line of effect was because the Cover section only refers to line of effect, not line of sight. And line of effect seems to be the only place in the book that defines what line of sight is (not that it really needs a definition).
Ah, well. A person doesn't really occupy the entire sqare, they're not a solid 5ftx5ft object. The rules specificly state that they only provide soft cover. However, it may be a better cover since there is another PC inbetween every sqare from the archer to the target, up to DMs. But I would never make it a total cover.
Where does it say that they only ever provide soft cover?
All I can find is:
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
Which doesn't say anything about soft cover never granting total cover. Also, total cover doesn't mention that it can't be granted from creatures.
Total Cover: If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw any line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Anyways, the lack of anything definitive saying that creatures can't ever grant more than soft cover coupled with the reasonable assumption that you can't fire through creatures at another creature is enough for me to rule that creatures do block line of sight.
Do you know the difference between solid barrier and not solid barrier? A solid barrier in game terms has always meant permanent features of the room IE walls, doors, trees etc. Those items provide total cover if the situation allows for it (as per the rules you quoted).
Where does it say that solid barriers are only those things? (Honestly asking here, because that would certainly clear this up).
And I'm not adding interpretations, unless creatures aren't considered solid barriers. I take that to mean things that aren't porous and things that aren't transparent, but if there is an actual game definition for this then by all means.
Leaving the above because I'd already written it when I found this:
A line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
Which is to say if a line-shaped spell can affect multiple creatures then creatures don't block line of effect. Because the qualifier for Total Cover is not having line of effect, and creatures don't block line of effect creatures can't grant total cover.
So barring total cover, the only way for a creature block line of sight would be for it to become a "factor that limits normal sight."
Sounds like you've figured it out, but I wanted to add, the important word in the total cover description is "solid barrier". I don't think you'd ever describe a creature as being a "solid barrier", but there are situations where it might be applicable -- for example, a gelatinous cube. You can typically draw line of effect through a square containing a creature, because that creature does not completely fill said square (and so isn't a 'solid barrier').
|
It is pretty obvious that there is A) no miss chance for soft cover, B) no cumulative effect for multiple soft covers (three PCs in a row don't provide any more than one), C) You can't roll stealth. Which means - you still see the target because A) you don't have to worry about missing, B) You only take a +4 (TOTAL) for any number of soft covers, and C) people can't use stealth when they are seen.
So there you go. You can attack through 1, 2, 3, 10000 soft covers if they are in range. And you only take a +4.