| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So cover, pretty standard thing to happen in any gaming session. So an ogre fighting in a ten foot hallway the fighter standing toe to toe with the beast. The archer type and mage blasting spells from behind the fighter.
A) The archer standing on the side of the ogre that fighter isn't on, is that partial soft cover still (+2 to AC)or is that cover because you can't draw a line to the 4 corner of the large base (+4). Some will point out that Big Creature and Cover but that states melee so lets say that is out. In this scenario is the AC bonus +2 or +4
B) Same set up but now 2 melee's fill hall so no matter what the ranged are firing through soft cover but wait, It's a large monster does that make it partial cover because you can see the top half of the monster? Or is low obstacles and cover to the ranged making it still +4 to AC?
C) The fighter need a heal so the brave cleric steps up to heal the fighter suffering an AoO because Ogre's have reach 10'...or does it? Now you can't AoO through cover and that fighter is soft cover so can the cleric just blast off heals standing right behind the fighter?
It's a pretty common thing and honestly I never put much thought into the RAW I've been making it a +2 AC thing due to the size difference and allowing monster to AoO anything in there reach but really I'm not to sure that's correct RAW.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
First of all, soft cover still grants the full +4 AC, it just doesn't grant the bonus to Reflex saves.
To determine cover, the attacker picks one corner of their square, then draws lines to all corners of the target's square. So in (A), it makes a difference whether you're talking about the archer attacking or being attacked. If the archer is attacking, then no matter which corner of his own square he starts from, at least one of the lines will pass through the fighter's square and grant cover to the ogre. However, if the ogre is attacking, and starts from the corner on the archer's side, he can draw unobstructed lines to all four of the archer's corners; therefore the archer has no cover against the ogre's attacks.
As for (B), let's look:
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.
So, is the archer closer to the fighter than the ogre is? If not, then he doesn't get to ignore the cover. Is the ogre closer to the fighter than the archer is? If so, then he can ignore the cover, though that probably also means the archer is out of his reach anyway.
But there's also this:
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.
Is more than half the ogre visible? If you count the fighters as filling their squares, then no, exactly half the ogre is visible, not more than half. So depending on GM discretion, the cover may or may not be reduced to +2.
For (C), there's nothing in the description of soft cover that contradicts the rule stating that you can't take AoOs across cover. Therefore, if the cleric (or other caster) has cover, he won't provoke.
Hope that helps!
Well I guess that's the heart of the question. In example A there the archer is on a clear line but still some of the ogre is covered by the fighter in melee. So is the cover a 2D thing or a 3D idea? Do you block it by 10' or do you look up to see if the monster is large but 8 1/2' tall? Seems like looking the height up of ever monster is a waste of game time.
And the example of B says that you see half a creature (as it is a half wall.) but the full +4 to AC still takes affect making me lean to the thought that cover idea is 2d not 3d. Am I saying it's realistic, not at all but as I have said many times to my players and vice versa this isn't reality its fantasy.
Is more than half the ogre visible? If you count the fighters as filling their squares, then no, exactly half the ogre is visible, not more than half. So depending on GM discretion, the cover may or may not be reduced to +2.
Ogre's are 10'x10'x10' sized. So the fighter is only covering 25% of the visible ogre to the archer.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Is more than half the ogre visible? If you count the fighters as filling their squares, then no, exactly half the ogre is visible, not more than half. So depending on GM discretion, the cover may or may not be reduced to +2.Ogre's are 10'x10'x10' sized. So the fighter is only covering 25% of the visible ogre to the archer.
In the example to which the statement you quoted was replying, there were two fighters.
Ah yes, sorry, the 2 fighter example is 50%.
Is more than half the ogre visible? If you count the fighters as filling their squares, then no, exactly half the ogre is visible, not more than half. So depending on GM discretion, the cover may or may not be reduced to +2.Ogre's are 10'x10'x10' sized. So the fighter is only covering 25% of the visible ogre to the archer.
Yes if you blocked out a monster that would be true. The question still is do you block out monsters, is it size thing? Small and Medium creatures are 5' but by logic wouldn't a small creature firing over a small creature only suffer -2 when trying to hit a medium creature? Under cover it reads as follows:
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).
No, as you said, small and medium are both 5x5x5.