I have recently been playing a campaign as a level 4 (2/2 paladin, sorcerer) sword and board character, i have managed to reach around 30 AC ish against some giants in a campaign as a halfling.
(I can go into more details if needbe)
But my question is:
I have teammates shooting into combat against these 12-14ft giants (me being 3ft) without precise shot.
The giants have 16AC and i have 30 currently against everything hitting me, ranged or melee.
The DM has said if my teammates miss the giant (roll a total of 14 or so) then i take the damage. Would I not have any save, chance of dodging or deflecting this?
Because if the teammate was actually aiming to hit me he would have to crit but because there is a giant then he just has to roll between 12-15 (which hits the cover (me))?
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
By the rules of Pathfinder this cannot happen. The worst that can happen is that your allies get a penalty to hit.
Without precise shot them your allies would take a -4 penalty to hit, and it is never assumed that you accidentally hit your allies on a miss.
Here's the full info for shooting/throwing into melee (from pfsrd.com):
Shooting or Throwing into a Melee
If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other. (An unconscious or otherwise immobilized character is not considered engaged unless he is actually being attacked.)
If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the –4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character.
If your target is two size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with, this penalty is reduced to –2. There is no penalty for firing at a creature that is three size categories larger than the friendly characters it is engaged with.
Precise Shot: If you have the Precise Shot feat, you don't take this penalty.
Having pointed this out about half of the DMs that I have played with over the years have used some variant house rule of the house rule you described. As a note a house rule is anytime a GM changes the way the way the rules of the game work. The reasons such a house rule is used varies from GM to GM, so you may want to talk to yours about it. Most of the variants that I see are usually much less punishing though, such as only triggering if the attack roll is a natural 1.
This sounds like a 2E rule that your DM is still using. You're right it doesn't make sense, and was replaced in the rules with the -4 to hit penalty instead of having a chance of hitting your allies for good reason.
|
21 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-)
3.0 rule. Itbwas quickly replaced with the penalty in 3.5.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) And don't let the DM forget that they take a -4 penalty for shooting at you in melee.
Edit: Also, you should have a conversation with you DM. I would start the conversation by asking him if he feels that your character's saves and armor class are too high. (I suspect that this may be your GM's problem, though I can't say for sure.) Continue the conversation by asking him "how he feels" about your character and his impact on the game. You can then respond with "how you feel" about your character and his contribution to the party. I know this sounds silly, but "feelings" are not something that can be argued. Using this tactic should (1) avoid escalation if there are any underlying issues and (2) facilitate open conversation of the actual concerns on both sides. (As with most situations, there are most likely legitimate concerns on both sides, you just need to understand each other.)
Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) By the GM's rules that should work but the GM probably wouldn't allow it....
Fake Healer wrote: Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) By the GM's rules that should work but the GM probably wouldn't allow it.... That's kind of the point - the rules should be fair and work the same for both parties. I'd recommend suggesting this to the GM with a sheepish grin, followed up by "perhaps we can review that rule or come up with something that works fairly for both sides?" I would also make this suggestion sometime other than during the middle of a session. As a GM, I am always more open to discussing concerns and coming to fair rulings when I don't have to be concerned about slowing down the session with deep rules conversations which robs everyone's fun.
MechE_ wrote: Fake Healer wrote: Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) By the GM's rules that should work but the GM probably wouldn't allow it.... That's kind of the point - the rules should be fair and work the same for both parties. I'd recommend suggesting this to the GM with a sheepish grin, followed up by "perhaps we can review that rule or come up with something that works fairly for both sides?" I would also make this suggestion sometime other than during the middle of a session. As a GM, I am always more open to discussing concerns and coming to fair rulings when I don't have to be concerned about slowing down the session with deep rules conversations which robs everyone's fun. Brace yourselves a wall of text is coming...
"Something that I want to clarify regarding the rules on ranged shooting into combat.
The rules state that if a intervening friend or foe is between you and the target they gain a +4 cover save (referred to as soft cover.) This is a line of sight issue and can be removed by re - positioning before a shot. (The feat: Improved Precise Shot negates this)
Due to the frenzy of melee, shooting into base to base combat imparts a further -4 penalty on your chance to hit. (This is negated by precise shot)
I couldn't find any reference regards failing to hit your target by 5 meaning you have shot someone else.
So I propose a house ruling that if you don't have precise shot and miss the target by four or less you have hit your friend or another character involved in the melee and not your intended target. They then take damage as normal. In the case that their is more then one Character between you and the target then roll a chance to see who is hit.
This also applies as I have since read up to include Ranged Touch attacks. So as an additional Feat I'm adding 'Magic Precise Shot' and 'Improved Magic Precise Shot.' As the other feats only affect ranged weapons"
I posted this on to the groups Facebook page after by rolling a one a previous night with a player character and shooting into combat I managed to graze the cheek of Smoky's other paladin for 1 damage. As an angry Half - Orc ranger with a hatred for humans I ignored it expecting his half-elf paladin to kick off. This was Dm ruled arbitrarily so I decided that it was time to put a definitive take on the predicament together.
The night in question where he was shot by a ranged specialist without precise shot the player was warned multiple times that he was going to potentially be very dangerous to his paladin mate currently tanking for him. He still took the shot and hit his friend (smokydv).
By my understanding the only mistake I made was regards the size difference so for that I apologise.
I don't feel that the house rule is to harsh or op or isn't particularly easy to circumvent. So In the games I will be running for now I will continue to use it and probably adapt it.
PS That was the only damage he took, all night, in fact anyone took. Nuffle was Un-kind.
Pps screw doing this on a mobile device and I am happy to hear advice regards the offending house rule.
Fake Healer wrote: Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) By the GM's rules that should work but the GM probably wouldn't allow it.... I completely would but for that to work and the character in question to even hit a soft bit by my workings the attack roll would still have to beat the paladin's armour class.
We used to use something similar in 3.5, but ours was as follows: If you didn't have precise shot, and missed the targets AC by 4 or less, compare your attack roll to the flat-footed AC of the closest character in melee. If you hit it, roll damage normally on that target. Otherwise the arrow failed to hit anyone.
It was a decent blend of still being able to hit your ally in melee, and the fact that even if you aren't looking to dodge an attack your armor should still help protect you no matter what. Just another variant idea to consider.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I still use 2E rules for firing into melee because I find firing into melee very stupid from personal experience. I allow a sniper feat where the attacker rolls his chance to see if he has a clear shot. If he fails the chance to hit then he knows he doesn't have a clear shot and holds his attacks. Basically it could take multiple rounds to get a clear shot. I like it. I don't like coward PC's sitting at range while the melee people get their ass kicked. It also discouraged wizard PCs from making ranged touch attacks. I just can't overcome the suspension of disbelief for firing into melee. And since most of the people I play with used to be 1E/2E or BECMI players it is generally accepted.
I would not do that to a new player without letting them know about it before the game ever starts. If I do anything that is not by the book I always let everyone know up front.
Back in our 2E days, we also used the rules for firing into combat.
If I were to implement it into our games today, I would use the d8 to determine where the miss landed (long, short, left right, etc) and then a d20 roll without modifiers to see if the missile hit. Damage would be equal to the shooters damage.
I certainly understand why the rules for hitting your teammates with missile weapons were removed. It does speed up game play a bit as well as eliminate some potential player conflicts (when you hit your buddy), but I admit that sometimes things like this bother my 'realism' nerve.
Kalriostraz wrote: We used to use something similar in 3.5, but ours was as follows: If you didn't have precise shot, and missed the targets AC by 4 or less, compare your attack roll to the flat-footed AC of the closest character in melee. If you hit it, roll damage normally on that target. Otherwise the arrow failed to hit anyone.
It was a decent blend of still being able to hit your ally in melee, and the fact that even if you aren't looking to dodge an attack your armor should still help protect you no matter what. Just another variant idea to consider.
Thanks Kalriostraz, this is something I haven't considered :)
Arnwolf wrote: I still use 2E rules for firing into melee because I find firing into melee very stupid from personal experience. I allow a sniper feat where the attacker rolls his chance to see if he has a clear shot. If he fails the chance to hit then he knows he doesn't have a clear shot and holds his attacks. Basically it could take multiple rounds to get a clear shot. I like it. I don't like coward PC's sitting at range while the melee people get their ass kicked. It also discouraged wizard PCs from making ranged touch attacks. I just can't overcome the suspension of disbelief for firing into melee. And since most of the people I play with used to be 1E/2E or BECMI players it is generally accepted.
I would not do that to a new player without letting them know about it before the game ever starts. If I do anything that is not by the book I always let everyone know up front.
Close combat is never static and people don't actually stand back to take turns and hit each other it's simultaneous, the initiative order simply creates order that's it's sole mechanical purpose. One of my favorite things to do when playing games like Counter-Strike was to use my enemies as cover, and something I employ again and again playing games like World of Tanks. I don't see why anyone wouldn't use whatever cover they have when facing down an enemy archer.
The guys have been kept aware of the house rule. I have tried to explain it but I think what I am learning here is that I need to try a different approach. I play with a different group on a Friday evening with player characters that are older then me and I'm used to the difficulty and challenge that comes with squaring up with a seasoned dm with a great deal of knowledge regards the mechanics. Gradually coming to realise that the games I enjoy the most will always be the ones where it comes down to the line.
RedDogMT wrote: Back in our 2E days, we also used the rules for firing into combat.
If I were to implement it into our games today, I would use the d8 to determine where the miss landed (long, short, left right, etc) and then a d20 roll without modifiers to see if the missile hit. Damage would be equal to the shooters damage.
I certainly understand why the rules for hitting your teammates with missile weapons were removed. It does speed up game play a bit as well as eliminate some potential player conflicts (when you hit your buddy), but I admit that sometimes things like this bother my 'realism' nerve.
Another one I have taken note of cheers RedDogMT
Instead of "you hit your friend on a miss" he should change it to if you shoot into melee without taking the -4 aiming penalty that there is a chance (100/number of people currently threatening the enemy) that we will assume is 50/50 of targeting your ally by accident. This more or less represents just firing into the melee to hit the monster instead of taking your time to aim and fire cautiously.
However, this cannot happen in basic Pathfinder rules since, as it stands, your character would ~never~ feel so inclined to risk injuring or killing his allies through his own recklessness.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) If your GM gives you any resistance (because GM's can make up rules if they want), this is the answer. When you turn it around to show how ridiculous his ruling truly is, he'll get why he shouldn't use it.
Treantmonk wrote: Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) If your GM gives you any resistance (because GM's can make up rules if they want), this is the answer. When you turn it around to show how ridiculous his ruling truly is, he'll get why he shouldn't use it. By doing this you would need to score 30-33 on your attack roll to hit the offending giant. The rule wasn't made up without thought and preparation first, it just makes the feat Precise Shot more valuable. The idea is to make the game more realistic and a touch more risky for people shooting into combat without the feat (which I still think is fair it's a risk vs reward mechanic for those people who aren't intending on becoming Legolas) its not to punish someone with an AC of 30.
One of the best games I've run resulted in a goblin joining the party on the basis he shot his mate and claimed he had planned to all along.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Applying old rules for firing into melee or fumble never works. The primary reason is the number of attacks. Between the two systems. In 2ed at the highest levels as an archer I get 4? AttCks with hyper special ializtion. In Pf I can spend 3 feats and I get 6 arrows mid level 7 for haste.
The big thing is it is a burden placed on one type of character in the game which basically ruins the play. Ask yourself this..why play an archer when a wizard never has to make these checks? No one asks a wizard to roll a d20 every 2d6 of fireball to see if he hits a team mate. But essentially an archer has to do this... and more as he gets better.
Its a bad house rule.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I've never seen a satisfactory rule for accidentally shooting friends while firing into melee. A realistic system should take into account (a) that the more skilled you are as an archer, the less likely it is to happen, (b) the higher your ally's AC, the less likely it is to happen, and (c) if you can accidentally hit allies on a miss you should also be able to accidentally hit enemies on a miss.
Matthew Downie wrote: I've never seen a satisfactory rule for accidentally shooting friends while firing into melee. A realistic system should take into account (a) that the more skilled you are as an archer, the less likely it is to happen, (b) the higher your ally's AC, the less likely it is to happen, and (c) if you can accidentally hit allies on a miss you should also be able to accidentally hit enemies on a miss. An archer takes Precise shot and never has to worry about his arrow placement as he will never hit his team mate getting more proficient with using the weapon he is mastering. The difference between hitting a target at 50 feet and hitting the bullseye at the same distance. I agree however that the house rule as is doesn't take into account for the armour of the individual who is then hit. Which is why I have considered the idea of using the individuals flat footed AC against the original attack roll meaning in this case through magical (mage armour) means the damage would have been negated and the shot would have pinged off. It's easy to circumvent and only applies to shots from players & monsters without precise shot.
I would go with needs work over a bad rule as it leads to more interesting roleplay & banter and risk reward gameplay.
What I think I am missing here is why as an archer modelled character you wouldn't want Precise shot. Situational as it is, it's better then Weapon Focus in those situations and leads to Improved Precise Shot which is god like. So the characters that are running the risk as such are characters and monsters that don't take this feat.
This is when I put summoned monsters on the front line instead of other PC's
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pretty much anything in relation to attack roll fumbles are the worst thing ever.
Dragonflyer1243 wrote: Without precise shot them your allies would take a -4 penalty to hit, and it is never assumed that you accidentally hit your allies on a miss. Don't forget a possible -2 for possible cover, unless they are making a called shot in which case you might be able to argue no cover was given. Although they'll take a negative to the called shot anyway.
Creatures that take up more than one square can resolve who has cover against them and who they have cover against by the attacker drawing those lines from/to any square that creature occupies. Which means that humans don't provide cover against creatures that top them by 5-10 feet in any selected dimension in almost any circumstance.
Also, the house rule doesn't make any sense as Precise Shot has nothing to do with Soft Cover so Precise Shot should have nothing to do with a house rule revolving around accidentally hitting Soft Cover.
Also there are a lot of reasons why you might miss with an arrow that had nothing to do with that cover. Until you can eliminate the vagaries of the die roll itself it's an ill thought out rule; at least in terms of being 'realistic'. You'd have to sit down and figure out what the actual percentage chance of hitting the target was on any individual shot and then roll a percentile die to see if the cover or a shot gone totally wide were the results of any individual shot.
Noctani wrote: Dragonflyer1243 wrote: Without precise shot them your allies would take a -4 penalty to hit, and it is never assumed that you accidentally hit your allies on a miss. Don't forget a possible -2 for possible cover, unless they are making a called shot in which case you might be able to argue no cover was given. Although they'll take a negative to the called shot anyway. There are no called shots in PF, either.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mortistic wrote: Treantmonk wrote: Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) If your GM gives you any resistance (because GM's can make up rules if they want), this is the answer. When you turn it around to show how ridiculous his ruling truly is, he'll get why he shouldn't use it. By doing this you would need to score 30-33 on your attack roll to hit the offending giant. The rule wasn't made up without thought and preparation first, it just makes the feat Precise Shot more valuable. The idea is to make the game more realistic and a touch more risky for people shooting into combat without the feat (which I still think is fair it's a risk vs reward mechanic for those people who aren't intending on becoming Legolas) its not to punish someone with an AC of 30.
One of the best games I've run resulted in a goblin joining the party on the basis he shot his mate and claimed he had planned to all along.
I think you misread the OP.
He said if the attack on the target misses, then the character the target is in melee with takes the damage.
If they shoot at the halfling, they are almost certain to miss. By missing the giant is hit automatically.
With this crazy house rule - the arrow ALWAYS hits someone. That's silliness.
If a GM wants to have some form of danger for missing when firing into melee, then fine. Might I suggest the following as a houserule instead:
1) When firing at an opponent in melee, if you roll a natural 1, you make a second attack roll targeting the character they are in melee with. If that attack hits, the character takes the damage.
Treantmonk wrote: Mortistic wrote: Treantmonk wrote: Thac20 wrote: Ask your team-mates to shoot at you instead of the giant. When they miss your AC 30 the giant takes the damage. :-) If your GM gives you any resistance (because GM's can make up rules if they want), this is the answer. When you turn it around to show how ridiculous his ruling truly is, he'll get why he shouldn't use it. By doing this you would need to score 30-33 on your attack roll to hit the offending giant. The rule wasn't made up without thought and preparation first, it just makes the feat Precise Shot more valuable. The idea is to make the game more realistic and a touch more risky for people shooting into combat without the feat (which I still think is fair it's a risk vs reward mechanic for those people who aren't intending on becoming Legolas) its not to punish someone with an AC of 30.
One of the best games I've run resulted in a goblin joining the party on the basis he shot his mate and claimed he had planned to all along.
I think you misread the OP.
He said if the attack on the target misses, then the character the target is in melee with takes the damage.
If they shoot at the halfling, they are almost certain to miss. By missing the giant is hit automatically.
With this crazy house rule - the arrow ALWAYS hits someone. That's silliness.
If a GM wants to have some form of danger for missing when firing into melee, then fine. Might I suggest the following as a houserule instead:
1) When firing at an opponent in melee, if you roll a natural 1, you make a second attack roll targeting the character they are in melee with. If that attack hits, the character takes the damage. Treantmonk:
Mortistic is the GM of the OP's game.
Their are literally thousands of factors to be taken into account regards firing a bow, their are probably rules that take into account for planetary rotation, gravity and wind speed. Just to name a few branches of statistical routes for analysis before we even begin to consider timing the shot with the blows and maneuvers your companion and enemy are attacking each other with. Let alone the angle of the armour at the point of contact, the type of arrow head... yada yada yada etc etc etc. This is about a different sort of realism I'm not looking for a scientific result, I'm looking for a little more chaos and a little less repetition. My apologies to the guys who I'm sure have plenty of experience with this game and or have been involved in shaping it but I'm looking for advice and not to be told no. No kills creativity and ruins role-play.
I am aware that precise shot technically negates the penalty for shooting into melee combat and doesn't have anything to do with soft cover. However the penalty only applies when you shoot into melee and that is all I'm interested in tweaking. Precise shot is easy to get to as a feat. I keep pointing it out but if your character is a ranged specialist why are you gifting your enemy essentially an extra 4 AC in the first place when your friends are most at risk and if you are not a ranged specialist why are you taking your action to shoot into combat. (Perhaps I may need to offer more obvious opportunities in combat stages to make use of skills and other interesting things)
I'm trying not to be a jerk here but I genuinely feel like this house-rule has it's place whether I plan on using it with the guys or not. The only real down side is that I feel like it is circumstantial and therefore a trivial rule to use. I should probably note the games we run are focused on character interaction as much as the plot itself, we generally allow for pvp, it normally ends with someone else's character stepping in and keeping the peace. The other thing which is slightly a skew to the norm we use a stable system whereby everyone has more then one character available to them all leveled from 1st level and impose a level cap when people take on quests or mini campaigns whilst the world changes and evolves around the characters and their actions. We have to date had five players running games myself included which off the back of this response, I'm planning on running a straight edge campaign to see how well that fairs with people who are new to the group rather then throwing people in at the deep end to see if they float.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This is a bad idea, realism or no. It also can engender bad feelings among the players. Don't do it.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mortistic wrote: I agree however that the house rule as is doesn't take into account for the armour of the individual who is then hit. Which is why I have considered the idea of using the individuals flat footed AC against the original attack roll meaning in this case through magical (mage armour) means the damage would have been negated and the shot would have pinged off. Why flat-footed AC? If you're dextrous enough to dodge an arrow that's aimed at you, why can't you dodge one which isn't aimed at you?
Matthew Downie wrote: By the rules of Pathfinder this cannot happen. The worst that can happen is that your allies get a penalty to hit. With two size categories difference, your allies can use ranged attacks without penalty.
DrDeth wrote: This is a bad idea, realism or no. It also can engender bad feelings among the players. Don't do it. The world we live in isn't always roses and cake, maybe the next time you put a goblin to the sword maybe you should spare a thought for his family. (That's the start of a character concept that I like the sound of ;)) Silliness aside I find that role-playing games allow you to challenge your own preconceptions of the world in a way like no other. If people get upset we quite often find ourselves in tense situations but that doesn't mean you don't learn from it and then don't proceed to learn a bit about your friends it is only a game. So many games these days embrace difficult subjects and a few of them get flat out banned for it. We have discussed situations and had one person leave in the past which was a shame, I've never sugar coated it.
Matthew Downie wrote: Mortistic wrote: I agree however that the house rule as is doesn't take into account for the armor of the individual who is then hit. Which is why I have considered the idea of using the individuals flat footed AC against the original attack roll meaning in this case through magical (Mage armour) means the damage would have been negated and the shot would have pinged off. Why flat-footed AC? If you're dexterous enough to dodge an arrow that's aimed at you, why can't you dodge one which isn't aimed at you? This I like and you're right the only counter argument I have is that you wouldn't think your friend stupid enough to shoot you in the back, which in essence forces the second attack roll against the ally's armour class a stray shot or not it's just how close were you willing to aim that shot past your ally. But to really hammer it out either the roll of a 1 or perhaps missing the target AC by two or less is fairer for the players.
Artanthos wrote: Matthew Downie wrote: By the rules of Pathfinder this cannot happen. The worst that can happen is that your allies get a penalty to hit. With two size categories difference, your allies can use ranged attacks without penalty. This was an over-sight on my part and a mistake which I have apologized for and on that basis were we to have met tonight the PC would have had his health back.
Just wanted to say thanks for this thread. Had a friend bring up a similar situation and I wanted to double check that you couldn't actually hit allies with misses.
As for my opinions on the matter the idea that you can't hit allies is much better than the other way around. On the one side you take a -4 penalty, showing that your well trained ranged character knows to shoot wide as to not risk hitting his/her allies. On the other side you risk turning the PC who has invested everything in their character for ranged combat either useless or a liability to the party, effectively wasting the character.
Mortistic wrote: DrDeth wrote: This is a bad idea, realism or no. It also can engender bad feelings among the players. Don't do it. The world we live in isn't always roses and cake, maybe the next time you put a goblin to the sword maybe you should spare a thought for his family. (That's the start of a character concept that I like the sound of ;)) Silliness aside I find that role-playing games allow you to challenge your own preconceptions of the world in a way like no other. If people get upset we quite often find ourselves in tense situations but that doesn't mean you don't learn from it and then don't proceed to learn a bit about your friends it is only a game. So many games these days embrace difficult subjects and a few of them get flat out banned for it. We have discussed situations and had one person leave in the past which was a shame, I've never sugar coated it. The world isn't roses and cake which is why you need to be able to trust the people who are supposed to have your back. If I was in a game which allowed lethal pvp and another players character threatened mine I would brush it off. Then when night came and we were taking shifts I would kill that character in his/her sleep. I've got enough to worry about with the monsters and I don't need to add a party member who can't manage their anger to add to that.
Basically if a character would engage in such pvp then that character is not capable of working with an adventuring party. Have players work out their characters issues verbally, it is just as if not even more realistic.
My most altruistic character devoted a fair percentage of their gold to trust funds for all the families of those they've slaughtered.
The ones that survived, anyway.
Don't go into Power Dome A wrote: Creatures that take up more than one square can resolve who has cover against them and who they have cover against by the attacker drawing those lines from/to any square that creature occupies. Which means that humans don't provide cover against creatures that top them by 5-10 feet in any selected dimension in almost any circumstance. Somewhat off topic, I think this is a 3.5 rule that Pathfinder dropped. Everything I've seen for shooting large critters doesn't allow you to target individual squares.
|
