If Medium-sized creatures A, B and C are all standing in a line, with A and C adjacent to B, does B provide soft cover if A and C are attacking each other with reach or ranged attacks?
(See poor diagram below.)
|
|
V
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|...|....|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|...|.A.|.B.|.C.|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|...|....|
|---|---|---|---|---|
Thank you. I thought that was the case, but it came up in a game recently and I realised it bothered me, because that was one of the main ways that reach weapons (such as polearms) were intended to be used, historically.
Now, if C is offset by one square, does B provide soft cover to C from A's attacks with a reach weapon?
(See poor diagram below.)
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|.C.|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|...|.A.|.B.|....|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|....|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. 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, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC).
So: yes, B provides cover to A.
Ruyan.
Are you talking about the first scenario or the second, RuyanVe? (Thanks for the PRD quote, either way.)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you. I thought that was the case, but it came up in a game recently and I realised it bothered me, because that was one of the main ways that reach weapons (such as polearms) were intended to be used, historically.
Now, if C is offset by one square, does B provide soft cover to C from A's attacks with a reach weapon?
(See poor diagram below.)
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|.C.|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|...|.A.|.B.|....|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|....|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
If I'm understanding the diagram correctly, then A can attack C without cover while C's attacks against A will still suffer from cover.
If I'm understanding the diagram correctly, then A can attack C without cover while C's attacks against A will still suffer from cover.Thank you. I thought that was the case, but it came up in a game recently and I realised it bothered me, because that was one of the main ways that reach weapons (such as polearms) were intended to be used, historically.
Now, if C is offset by one square, does B provide soft cover to C from A's attacks with a reach weapon?
(See poor diagram below.)
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|.C.|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|...|.A.|.B.|....|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|....|...|....|....|...|
|---|---|---|---|---|
True, because there is no corner of C's square from which you can draw a line to every corner of A's square without passing through B. But choosing one of the upper corners of A's square allows A to draw a line to every corner of C's square without passing through B.
This assumes, of course, that they have 15 foot reach, since they are two diagonals away from each other...
anthonydido is right about the set-up - and his diagram is much clearer than mine!
The thing is, A presumably chooses one of the top corners of his square; but the lines from these to the bottom corners of C's square pass through the top border of B's square. So does that mean that C has cover from A? And would it make a difference if B was a 5-foot-square block of stone, rather than a creature?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, A presumably chooses one of the top corners of his square; but the lines from these to the bottom corners of C's square pass through the top border of B's square. So does that mean that C has cover from A? And would it make a difference if B was a 5-foot-square block of stone, rather than a creature?
You'll find some contention on this point, but at least in my interpretation, "pass along" =/= "pass through".
I agree with Jiggy, too. But what is the "through a border" clause for? When would this apply and not be covered by "through a square"?
|
Through a border and through a square are essentially the same thing. If you pass through a border of a square then you are passing through the square itself, even if it's just a small piece of it.
The idea is to draw an imaginary line form the one corner that you pick to the 4 corners of the target and see if it goes through a border of a square occupied by someone/something. Or you could use something like a miniature wargaming measuring device which is what I use; a roll of string wound up like measuring tape.
If neither of the 4 lines cross a border of a square that could provide cover, then there is no cover. Which is why that "through a border" statement is there.
I agree with Jiggy, too. But what is the "through a border" clause for? When would this apply and not be covered by "through a square"?I believe it is for when you are on a hard corner with your target.
Good point, James. That means we have an awkward situation.
If "through a border" includes "along a border", then a creature in a straight five-foot-wide corridor always has cover from someone attacking it at range.
If "through a border" doesn't include "along a border", then a creature never has cover from someone attacking it at range from round a corner.
Maybe we should calculate cover using lines from the centre of an attacker's square?
|
|
Well, remember that you don't occupy the entire square all of the time and are free to move about within that 5' square while performing actions (which is all arbitrary within the rules). Much like if you were on the edge of a fog cloud or something, you can shoot your arrows from the edge of the square "along" the obstruction with no problems. People shoot guns using walls for cover all of the time in the real world so I don't see how it's a problem within the rules.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If "through a border" doesn't include "along a border", then a creature never has cover from someone attacking it at range from round a corner.
This is a feature, not a bug. Have you never seen a movie where a shooter prefers to hide behind something while shooting? A shooter leaning out from behind an obstacle is supposed to be at an advantage.
If "through a border" doesn't include "along a border", then a creature never has cover from someone attacking it at range from round a corner.This is a feature, not a bug. Have you never seen a movie where a shooter prefers to hide behind something while shooting? A shooter leaning out from behind an obstacle is supposed to be at an advantage.
The shooter would have an advantage, in any case - they'd have cover, while the target would only have partial cover. They'd also be able to use Stealth to hide from the target, potentially taking them by surprise and also sniping at them.
It does seem to me that, in this situation, the target should have some bonus to their defence - and partial cover seems just about right. However, YMMV.
|
|
Why does the target need bonuses? People gain beneficial positions all of the time in battle. In fact that's a very standard tactic.
If we are still talking about the corner shooting scenario then this is how it should work.
The shooter could very well stealth and snipe from the corner and while he may remain unseen, the target is going to know what direction the arrows came from (especially from down a hallway). Now, the shooter has partial cover from the target if the target decided to retaliate from the position he was in. The target is "out in the open" though so he doesn't have any cover unless he finds something to hide behind.
It's just the nature of the situation. If the target is dumb enough to just stand there and take the arrows and not gain a better position then that's their fault.
Are you talking about the first scenario or the second, RuyanVe? (Thanks for the PRD quote, either way.)
Was talking about the first, sorry for the confusion; considering the second example: I can only add my voice to the consesus already reached (hehe) here: +1 to Jiggy.
Ruyan.
Why does the target need bonuses? ... The target is "out in the open" though so he doesn't have any cover unless he finds something to hide behind.
Sorry, I should have made it clear that I'm taking about this specific situation:
__C____________
XXXXXXXXXXX|A
Here, I feel that C should get some defensive bonus against attacks from A.
|
|
Hmm, that's essentially the same situation unless I'm just misreading your diagram.
Is this what you are trying to draw?
(O's are open squares)
|
|
OO___C___
OO|AOOOOO
Is C in a doorway or something and A is around the corner and 2 squares down? Or are they diagonal to one another like this:
OO___C___
OO|OAOOOO
Hopefully some images will make what I mean clearer. In all cases, A is shooting at C. The scenario I was initially talking about, where I feel that C should get some defensive bonus (eg partial cover) is where A is round the corner, and C is by the wall, like this.
To me, this seems a different situation from where C is out in the open, like this, or where A isn't round the corner, like this. In both these cases, A has a clear shot at C, and so C shouldn't get any defensive bonus. But I think that in the first scenario, the physical set-up is such that C should get some bonus.
|
|
Yeah, that's the exact scenario I was describing. What I meant by "out in the open" was there was nothing C could hide behind. Being next to a wall =/= being behind a wall. A is taking advantage of his battlfield position to fire from the edge of the wall and benefit from cover as well. C does not have the battlefield position to do this. I still don't see why C should have any defensive bonuses. Try picturing this scenario using guns in a real world environment.
Quick question:
A is the shooter, B is the target. X is a wall/pillar (O are empty squares).
AOOOOOXB
Both gain cover when attacked by the other party. Correct?
Shouldn't B have the option of hiding complelty behind the wall and not exposing himself? If B takes a full defense action or does not make an attack and declares that they are staying entirely out of sight, surely A wouldn't even be able to see B. Is this rules legal or just a common sense ruling?
Now, the wall is a 10 ft section like this:
AOOOOOXB
OOOOOOX
Same situation as above. Shouldn't B be able to stand half way between squares and be complelty out of sight from A?
Yes, they both have cover from each other. B can try to hide from A by making a Stealth church, opposed by A's Perception.
In the second situation, B can just step down one square to be completely hidden from A. Standing half-way between squares isn't a thing.
...a Stealth church...
I meant "a Stealth check", obviously. Damn you, autocorrect! Although a stealth church could be interesting...
...a Stealth church...I meant "a Stealth check", obviously. Damn you, autocorrect! Although a stealth church could be interesting...
It would certainly be unexpected, anyway.