|
Low obstacles and cover?
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.Thanks to Joana for bringing this one up.
This rule is why a creature under the influence of Enlarge Person, and holding a reach weapon, can sometimes strike over an adjacent creature at foes 15' and 20' away. This only works when striking over a creature less than half your height, per the above rule. In this case there's no soft cover, attacks are normal, and AoOs are not blocked.
CoverTo 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).
...
Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
The problem with the arrow slits and cover is an artifact of how the maps are drawn.
To make them "right" for play, the arrow slit should be drawn in a corner of the square. That way the line traced by the firer using the arrow slit and adjacent to it can be traced from the corner of his square free from obstructions of his LoS, while the firer not adjacent to the arrow slit would find that 3 out of 4 corners of the target are blocked by an obstacle. That way the guy behind the arrow slit has improved cover while the guy in the open field firing at him has no cover.Note that:
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
|
|
Cover
...Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
The problem with the arrow slits and cover is an artifact of how the maps are drawn.
To make them "right" for play, the arrow slit should be drawn in a corner of the square. That way the line traced by the firer using the arrow slit and adjacent to it can be traced from the corner of his square free from obstructions of his LoS, while the firer not adjacent to the arrow slit would find that 3 out of 4 corners of the target are blocked by an obstacle. That way the guy behind the arrow slit has improved cover while the guy in the open field firing at him has no cover.Note that:
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.Sometimes you have to ignore the letter of the rules. The whole point of arrow slits is to let you shoot while giving you cover. That's how they should work, as long as you're shooting at a target roughly in front of the arrow slit.
OTOH, you shouldn't be able to use reach weapons through an arrow slit at all. Maybe a spear at someone climbing the wall, but not something like a pike or based on your own large size.
Actually a well made arrowslit give you at least a 90° arc of fire.
My comment was for the people that want to follow strictly the RAW of the rules. Obviously the function of arrowslits is to provide cover for the guy using it.The reach part was about Magda Luckbender comment, not the arrowslits.
Or, better yet, do not use fumble rules and the problems never arise. But YMMV. There is no wrong way to have fun.
|
|
Has anyone ever actually used the massive damage rule? That seems MUCH less popular than even the fumble deck.You know, I expected something scathing about cheaters and was all prepared to mention the time I found the massive damage rule that killed my character.
This is much better.
My playing group always use it, regardless of who is currently the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diego's suggestion for arrow slits seems reasonable, but at least for home games it also seems safe to rule like thejeff that they "just work". I mean, there are some rules in the book describing the benefit of firing from behind an arrow slit, so it isn't unreasonable to assume that there should be some way to actually gain that benefit.
I was a staunch opponent of fumbles which activate on a natural 1, and several groups probably felt I was a spoilsport because of it. The confirmation roll and the rule that you can only fumble once per combat really do make a big difference though. Regarding martial PCs with low iterative attacks, we did have one half-orc Barbarian who would refuse to make his lowest BAB attacks against high AC opponents on the assumption that he'd be more likely to fumble.
|
|
Nearly everyone forgets
-they take a -4 for attacking through someone, or know.in the first place how to determine cover for ranged/reach weapons
-they cannot charge through a friendly, and they need a clear path for the entire width of their circular base(cut square base miniatures a little slack) of their miniature movement, this should prevent many pounces
I think most people know the charging rules pretty well. There's a lot of confusion about cover rules for ranged attacks, though, and when/if they apply to melee.
Actually, I just looked in the Core Rulebook again, and there's one rule that I could have sworn was a rule, but I'm not seeing it. I thought when firing a ranged weapon, if the person firing is closer to a source of cover than the target, then they can avoid the cover penalty, because they're close enough to more easily fire around it.
ie Someone 50 feet away from a wall with an arrow slot, while an archer is adjacent to the wall on the other side. The archer doesn't have to worry about the cover penalty, because he's standing right there firing through the arrow slot, but his victim will have a hell of a time firing back.
We've also used this for years when standing directly behind an ally and firing "over their shoulder" to avoid cover penalties from your ally blocking your shot. But it doesn't help when firing from a distance when your ally is blocking your shot while in melee with the bad guy, because the source of cover (your ally) is closer to the target than you are.
Did I just imagine that was a rule? I'm just not seeing it in the Combat chapter of the Core Rulebook now.
Fromper question isn't resolved by the arrowslit post, as the situation is different. Again, it is partially an artifact of the grid. In RL a guy before you is a hindrance to your fire, especially with a bow or crossbow, less with a firearm, but in RL it is possible to stagger the firer position so that he is only partially covered by the obstacle.
I think that the best way to depict what he is trying to do, is to say that the firer has only partial cover and the target none.
Partial Cover: If a creature has cover, but more than half the creature is visible, its cover bonus is reduced to a +2 to AC and a +1 bonus on Reflex saving throws. This partial cover is subject to the GM's discretion.
Cover
...Improved Cover: In some cases, such as attacking a target hiding behind an arrowslit, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
The problem with the arrow slits and cover is an artifact of how the maps are drawn.
To make them "right" for play, the arrow slit should be drawn in a corner of the square. That way the line traced by the firer using the arrow slit and adjacent to it can be traced from the corner of his square free from obstructions of his LoS, while the firer not adjacent to the arrow slit would find that 3 out of 4 corners of the target are blocked by an obstacle. That way the guy behind the arrow slit has improved cover while the guy in the open field firing at him has no cover.Note that:
When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.Sometimes you have to ignore the letter of the rules. The whole point of arrow slits is to let you shoot while giving you cover. That's how they should work, as long as you're shooting at a target roughly in front of the arrow slit.
OTOH, you shouldn't be able to use reach weapons through an arrow slit at all. Maybe a spear at someone climbing the wall, but not something like a pike or based on your own large size.
Yeah, I agree. If you play games that have arrow slits (like M&B Warband) you can get a better sense of how they work. They are truly marvellous, but an accurate shot that is correct vertically can go right in from a front shot. The bad news is that if you are in front of a slit, any shot that drops in gets you really badly (centre-line, head to groin).
If we talking fantasy, there could be pike-slits or the like built into a castle to drive off fliers, climbers.
Back to reality, as I look it up, some arrow slits were actually pretty wide, and while a wide hafted pike would struggle, leaner thinner spears, swordstaves or slender partizans could have set ready to stab out. Of course, then you can't use it as an arrow slit.
Diego's suggestion for arrow slits seems reasonable, but at least for home games it also seems safe to rule like thejeff that they "just work". I mean, there are some rules in the book describing the benefit of firing from behind an arrow slit, so it isn't unreasonable to assume that there should be some way to actually gain that benefit.
I was a staunch opponent of fumbles which activate on a natural 1, and several groups probably felt I was a spoilsport because of it. The confirmation roll and the rule that you can only fumble once per combat really do make a big difference though. Regarding martial PCs with low iterative attacks, we did have one half-orc Barbarian who would refuse to make his lowest BAB attacks against high AC opponents on the assumption that he'd be more likely to fumble.
That is a very interesting position the barb player took.
I imagine the half-orc being very careful, measured and not attacking as wildly or as often as he could. Smart.
Back to reality, as I look it up, some arrow slits were actually pretty wide, and while a wide hafted pike would struggle, leaner thinner spears, swordstaves or slender partizans could have set ready to stab out. Of course, then you can't use it as an arrow slit.
They also, generally, weren't at ground level. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The next sleazy dive I put in my campaigns is going to be named "The Murder Hole." It's so evocative!
I prefer the Garderobe (sp) which was the old word for the lavatory in a castle.
(sp) = "spelling?" from english classes in hs/college. Spell Like Ability = SLA.
What's the ruling on familiars and held charge touch attacks combined with natural attacks that I asked upthread?
Meh. Make the crit fumble have to be "confirmed" at full BAB and the 'problems' go away.Critical Fumbles are the worst thing Paizo has ever published. Worse than the crane wing errata. Worse than the playtest arcanist.
Critical fumble rules are always and without exception bad in every game system that has or can have them and in this century there's no longer the excuse of novelty for thinking they might be a good idea.
They're especially bad in Pathfinder where the weakest classes roll dice while the stronger force saving throws.
Forget them. Forget they ever existed. Consign them to oblivion by making a level 20 healing hand monk named Critical Fumble Deck and having him sacrifice his existence to heal some random beggar.
I've seen critical fumbles done well, and multiple groups have liked them. It adds flavour to the combat knowing that mistakes really can be made (on all sides). We had some last game, and the mirth was high. I play with cool chilled people though, that aren't too serious.
Is failure really so abhorrent that you can't have a laugh at it?
Leaving aside the fact that critical fumbles disproportionately affect characters who make attack, a lot of people get annoyed with critical fumbles on a thematic level, given the way d20s work. The idea that your fighter can't last a full minute in combat without stabbing himself in the foot, taking a pratfall, dropping his weapon, or accidentally hitting an ally rather hurts the image of the character as competent in their chosen profession.
That said, fumble rules are fine for a lighthearted game where everyone's getting wacky concepts and aiming for maximum absurdity.
sure, 1 in 400 swings of a weapon resulting in some massively bad outcome is much more realistic than 1 in 20. Even with confirmation it is unrealistic, maybe make it 1 in 8000 and we might be getting close to decent. That is a 1 followed by a 1 followed by a 1.
Or just to be fair, everytime a mage uses magic, roll a crit check. Every time, every wand, every spell, every scroll, every d. magic, everything. See how fun they are when all the caster's realize they are screwed on average 1 in 20 casts of magic.
The next sleazy dive I put in my campaigns is going to be named "The Murder Hole." It's so evocative!I prefer the Garderobe (sp) which was the old word for the lavatory in a castle.
Be careful with that one. Garde-robe means closet (literally, "where you keep your robes").
It could definitely be a euphemism for the lavatory, but depending where you see it, it wouldn't have to be. (If you like multilayered plays on words, it could be the homosexual-themed sleazy dive...)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, having been a SCA heavy weapons fighter for quite some time, and a Marshal after that, I can tell you that "fumbles' are rare, and occur maybe once or twice a whole tourney , and a few more times during a entires day war. That's for ALL the participants, many Fighters go for months without a "fumble".If you wanted to make it "realistic", it'd be a nat 1 followed by a nat 1, followed by a nat 1.
I didn't know you were a SCAdian, Deth. I'm a Heavy Weapons Fighter myself, and I loathe the rules for most of the weapons in Pathfinder. Crossbows in particular are a travesty. However, this is case where fantasy isn't the real world, and I just go with it.
Although, in most cases, I'd rather being playing GURPS, as they got realistic combat right. But it's much easier to find a Pathfinder game than GURPS.
And, having been a SCA heavy weapons fighter for quite some time, and a Marshal after that, I can tell you that "fumbles' are rare, and occur maybe once or twice a whole tourney , and a few more times during a entires day war. That's for ALL the participants, many Fighters go for months without a "fumble".If you wanted to make it "realistic", it'd be a nat 1 followed by a nat 1, followed by a nat 1.
I didn't know you were a SCAdian, Deth. I'm a Heavy Weapons Fighter myself, and I loathe the rules for most of the weapons in Pathfinder. .. However, this is case where fantasy isn't the real world, and I just go with it.
Although, in most cases, I'd rather being playing GURPS, as they got realistic combat right. But it's much easier to find a Pathfinder game than GURPS.
Yep, since ASXI, Pelican, Baron and all that.
Yeah, well I liked Runequest, fairly realistic. C&S was very realistic. But the more realistic it is, it seems the longer the combats take. And Runequest had horrible fumbles. C&S was nigh unplayable.
You seem to be working on the assumption that a fumble means that you have, without any intervention by the opponent, dropped your weapon or hit yourself. A fumble can mean (and in my rules often does) that the opponent gets an AoO on you, or you have -4 AC for a round, or you have -4 to hit next round, or that you do something minor but embarrassing that has negligible mechanical game effect.
If you can honestly tell me that a typical SCAer has never had one of those things happen because of his own lack of skill or imperfect gear, I shall be forced to assume that they are extremely well-trained (far better than my fencing or TaeKwonDo instructors, for example) and always fight on a perfectly flat and grippy surface with immaculately maintained equipment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be working on the assumption that a fumble means that you have, without any intervention by the opponent, dropped your weapon or hit yourself. A fumble can mean (and in my rules often does) that the opponent gets an AoO on you, or you have -4 AC for a round, or you have -4 to hit next round, or that you do something minor but embarrassing that has negligible mechanical game effect.
If you can honestly tell me that a typical SCAer has never had one of those things happen because of his own lack of skill or imperfect gear, I shall be forced to assume that they are extremely well-trained (far better than my fencing or TaeKwonDo instructors, for example) and always fight on a perfectly flat and grippy surface with immaculately maintained equipment.
That's not really a fair comparison, as an equipment failure results in either an immediate hold, or as what happened to a duke I know wearing titanium vambraces, a broken bone.
Leaving yourself open isn't a critical failure, its prat of the abstraction of AC vs the attack roll.
Also, that tends to happen within a single second, and a combat round is an approximation of the action in six seconds.
Pathfinder likes to pretend that it is a simulationist system, but it's not. It uses a lot of little rules to give the illusion of exactness while being very vague or flat out wrong about the actual physics of combat.
You seem to be working on the assumption that a fumble means that you have, without any intervention by the opponent, dropped your weapon or hit yourself. A fumble can mean (and in my rules often does) that the opponent gets an AoO on you, or you have -4 AC for a round, or you have -4 to hit next round, or that you do something minor but embarrassing that has negligible mechanical game effect.
If you can honestly tell me that a typical SCAer has never had one of those things happen because of his own lack of skill or imperfect gear, I shall be forced to assume that they are extremely well-trained (far better than my fencing or TaeKwonDo instructors, for example) and always fight on a perfectly flat and grippy surface with immaculately maintained equipment.
Those are the abstractions of combat, which is why a 20 always hits and a 1always misses.
But dropped weapons and other fumbles? Sure, those might happen to a good fighter once or twice in a decade.
So, not once in 20 swings, or once in 20 plus a miss, or even once in 400. Three natrural ones in a row would still make it occur more often than reality.
You're still working from the assumption that "fumble" always means "dropped weapon," instead of, say, take a -4 penalty to that attack roll.You seem to be working on the assumption that a fumble means that you have, without any intervention by the opponent, dropped your weapon or hit yourself. A fumble can mean (and in my rules often does) that the opponent gets an AoO on you, or you have -4 AC for a round, or you have -4 to hit next round, or that you do something minor but embarrassing that has negligible mechanical game effect.
If you can honestly tell me that a typical SCAer has never had one of those things happen because of his own lack of skill or imperfect gear, I shall be forced to assume that they are extremely well-trained (far better than my fencing or TaeKwonDo instructors, for example) and always fight on a perfectly flat and grippy surface with immaculately maintained equipment.
Those are the abstractions of combat, which is why a 20 always hits and a 1always misses.
But dropped weapons and other fumbles? Sure, those might happen to a good fighter once or twice in a decade.
So, not once in 20 swings, or once in 20 plus a miss, or even once in 400. Three natrural ones in a row would still make it occur more often than reality.
That's asinine. I take a -4 penalty to a roll I've already missed (by rolling a 1)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty good list, although #4 is misleading. You can only do that if you're holding the charge, which is specifically for the round after you cast it.
Still pretty nifty, but not the same as the Magus.
Add in that having the wizard punch someone is a whole separate level of problems.
You always COULD spell/punch someone... but without the stats/build/BAB... WHY would you?!?!
Obviously sir, you haven't heard of Punch Wizardry. It uses the techniques passed down the Armstrong line for GENERATIONS!
That's asinine. I take a -4 penalty to a roll I've already missed (by rolling a 1)?
To the next attack, you blithering fool.
Huh learned some new stuff today
I am reminded of the saying that all fights eventually end on the ground.
House rules are one thing. The optional Paizo critical fumble deck is another. The decks suggests using the 'roll to confirm using full BAB' rule, which means it shouldn't happen too often to a skilled character, but as you say makes it oddly likely to happen when firing a bow at an enemy with high AC. But maybe firing at a difficult target is distracting?
One of the ranged effects is indeed: "Snapped String: If attack was made with a bow or crossbow, the string breaks and requires 1d3 rounds to fix."
Melee effects: "You are flat footed for one round." "You provoke an AoO from all adjacent opponents." "You take one point of bleed." "You are sickened for 1d4 rounds." "You fall prone." Most of them make sense if you think of it as something your target did to you when you left a small opening. (Well, as much sense as it makes that a skilled fighter attacking an elephant will simply roll less than AC and miss a lot of the time.) Although some of them are more slapstick. "Your weapon is stuck in a nearby surface. DC 20 Strength check to free it."
Heh, I remember back in AD&D, a sensible character would carry multiple strings. If you broke yours and didn't have one, well a dm might shrug and say too bad.
Why ever would I want to implement a "roll to confirm using full BAB against the target's AC" rule when "... against AC 20" is so much fairer?
And then there's scaling results: if you miss the confirm by 5 or less, -2 to next attack, 10 or less, -4 to next attack, 11+, 'something bad happens'.
Not that I ever intend to introduce fumbles to my game, but there's ways to do it without being mean.
If you truly remember those years, then you remember the house rules and how every group had them (sometimes they got really complicated).
The ruleset also did not cover absolutely everything, and its focus was quite different to PF. There was more advice and less rules. When something came up that wasn't in the rules you had to make a call and go with the flow, and being a dm was a part of this (part of the imagination/necessity-of-adaptability parcel that the game involved). This could include having to rule for things being broken, changed, damp, dropped in acid or being blasted. Those dms/players that cared about medieval combat knew that you just shouldn't keep a bow strung all the time, and that the strings and the limbs of the bow can snap.
If your bowstring cannot snap, please tell me where you get these adamantium bowstrings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a longtime viewer and one time participant in violent sports (football for me) I think that fumbles aren't really as uncommon as some folks seem to feel. Plenty of boxers have slipped and fallen while throwing a punch or even just trying to move around. I've seen some MMA bloopers as well including multiple guys breaking their leg while kicking. As UFC fans should know, these "fumbles" can happen even to great champions.
If you watch football games closely you'll probably see a lot of guys slip and fall. You'll certainly see guys hurt themselves when they hit other people. Knee injuries while running aren't even that uncommon. I think that adding a "fumble check" for movement in combat would be going too far, but slippery areas which require Acrobatics checks could actually be fun and give characters like Rogues a chance to shine a little (and those rules are already part of the game)
On the other hand, Pathfinder isn't really a game about realism. Groups should obviously do what they feel is fun. All of the people I play with who don't post on the forums seem to agree that the fumble deck is fun though. One DM seemed kind of miffed to hear that there are people who don't like fumbles and basically accused them of being sentimental wimps.
If your bowstring cannot snap, please tell me where you get these adamantium bowstrings.
Adventure Mart. On the same isle as the armor straps that never break due to wear and tear.
Oh. Forgot the one additional rule for me: no matter how many iteratives you have, you can only fumble once: any other natural one is just a one.
If you truly remember those years, then you remember the house rules and how every group had them (sometimes they got really complicated).
The ruleset also did not cover absolutely everything, and its focus was quite different to PF. There was more advice and less rules. When something came up that wasn't in the rules you had to make a call and go with the flow, and being a dm was a part of this (part of the imagination/necessity-of-adaptability parcel that the game involved). This could include having to rule for things being broken, changed, damp, dropped in acid or being blasted. Those dms/players that cared about medieval combat knew that you just shouldn't keep a bow strung all the time, and that the strings and the limbs of the bow can snap.
If your bowstring cannot snap, please tell me where you get these adamantium bowstrings.
Of course. I was just pointing out that your recollection was based on house-rules, not the actual game mechanics.
And I never said bowstrings cannot snap, just that they didn't. We didn't worry about things on that level of detail, anymore than we worried about about bathroom breaks or other weapons getting dulled or broken or the great big holes in the armor we looted from the guy we hacked to pieces.
You never closed with a devastating archer and wanted to cut the string?
At such a point the dm has to make a call. If the dm temporarily takes out the pc archer with a broken string, then the players can start to get inventive and act to try and do that to enemies.
As a longtime viewer and one time participant in violent sports (football for me) I think that fumbles aren't really as uncommon as some folks seem to feel. Plenty of boxers have slipped and fallen while throwing a punch or even just trying to move around. I've seen some MMA bloopers as well including multiple guys breaking their leg while kicking. As UFC fans should know, these "fumbles" can happen even to great champions.
If you watch football games closely you'll probably see a lot of guys slip and fall. You'll certainly see guys hurt themselves when they hit other people. Knee injuries while running aren't even that uncommon. I think that adding a "fumble check" for movement in combat would be going too far, but slippery areas which require Acrobatics checks could actually be fun and give characters like Rogues a chance to shine a little (and those rules are already part of the game)
On the other hand, Pathfinder isn't really a game about realism. Groups should obviously do what they feel is fun. All of the people I play with who don't post on the forums seem to agree that the fumble deck is fun though. One DM seemed kind of miffed to hear that there are people who don't like fumbles and basically accused them of being sentimental wimps.
Yep, and training or sparring (where accidents can and do happen) isn't nearly as high stress or fast as the real thing.
I made that point above on fights ending up on the ground, because even when people are winning a fight/brawl, they can find that they fall over, trip or commit too much.
@DM Under The Bridge - I think the adage about most fights ending up on the ground has more to do with grappling than slipping and falling, but the chaos of combat can manifest itself in many ways.
@Arssanguinus - The semi-official Fumble Deck rules limit each creature to one fumble per combat