I also noticed that you said cover does not prevent line of sight or provide concealment. This is not 100% correct.
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.
As long as the object that grants that cover is not translucent, it would also prevent line of sight and provide total concealment.
Now, I stated 100% because it depends on how you define cover. Amazingly, it looks as if the CRB calls out specific objects as giving cover and does a horrible job of saying that cover is provided by any object that is solid enough to slow, deflect, or stop an attack. A lot of people, myself included, would label the object that provides cover as cover. In the middle of a fight, I don't care that a tree is a tree, I care that is stops arrows and bullets. It's new name is cover. So, in many cases I would just call the tree: cover.
Technically Jeff is correct about soft cover not stopping AoOs. But in reality, it will stop most AoOs. Soft cover only works against ranged attacks. So every melee AoO would be allowed to get through, but the ranged AoOs (not reach, reach attacks are still melee attacks) would not be valid.
Finally, you might want to change the images. I am not sure if you are allowed to use the characters in a project like this.
Nice work!
Cover is determined when addressing solid objects.
Cover is applicable during ranged attacks
Cover is applicable during melee attacks.
When determining cover, one treats non-adjacent characters as ranged attacks.
Soft Cover is determined when addressing creatures and PCs.
Soft Cover is applicable during ranged attacks.
Taenia, What is wrong with the above logic? There is no mention of melee attacks or treating any melee attacks as ranged attacks under the heading of soft cover.
I see what you are saying, and you may be correct, but I read it differently. There are so many logic gaps and rules that we have to ignore or fill for cover to work that either one of us may be correct. And as in other parts of this game, either your logic and mine could be correct.
Bodies specifically provide soft cover and not cover.
There are no squares or borders IN the game. They are only the map representations of space. So squares and borders themselves do not provide cover. Only the things IN the game that are in a square or on the borders can provide cover.
Cover does get a definition, "a square or border that blocks lines of effect" provides cover.
That isn't anywhere near the correct quote and it changes the context completely. The actual quote is:
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).
You can't use the original word as the definition for that same word. That sentence says that cover is something that provides cover. That is exactly like saying heat is something that provides heat. The only definition for cover is "+4 to AC".
The cover section does a great job of describing what the benefits of cover are, but not so much of a great job of actually describing what cover is. Just like the game never describes what a sword, armor or shield actually is.
And to go further with my point that cover doesn't work per RAW, according to RAW, cover is provided when line of effect is blocked or when creatures are in the way. This poses a huge problem with the rules if one follows the actual definition of "line of effect."
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1
square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect.
I know the above quote is the definition in relation to spells, but there is no other definition. As such, if your target is standing on the other side of a 4' diameter tree, he does not have cover. Because there is WAY more than a 1' square space that your arrow can travel through. And of course, we know from the section of the rules on forests that trees do in fact provide cover, even though the do not stop line of effect. But if you changed it to a 4' diameter stone pillar, there would actually be no such rule.
Arrow slits are affected by the same wording. Somehow they don't stop line of effect, and therefore don't provide cover, yet they are used as an example of not only providing cover, but improved cover. The two rules cannot be reconciled as written.
So we are left to plug the gaps in the rules by making leaps of logic. Some seem so obvious that we don't realize we made the leap. But when you look at all the rules combined, how could it possibly work as written?
|
When determining cover, one treats non-adjacent characters as ranged attacks.
Soft Cover is determined when addressing creatures and PCs.
Soft Cover is applicable during ranged attacks.
So Soft covers works against ranged attacks. Non-adjacent melee are treated as using ranged attacks, therefore if you are fighting a creature with reach and you have someone standing between you and them that person provides cover to both you and the creature with reach.
XXXBBXXX
XXXBBXXX B = a large creature with reach, A is the guy inbetween and
XXXXAXXX C = you. Then you have soft cover against B and B cannot
XXXXCXXX make AoOs on you. Soft cover = cover with no reflex save
XXXXXXXX or stealth.
The problem I see in your logic is that you don't think that treating non-adjacent character as ranged attacks applies to soft cover only to cover.
However, that statement is prior to all the types of cover listed.
So when you are considering each type of cover you have to consider that in each definition of types of cover they have already established a rule regarding non-adjacent melee.
As for the rest of your argument I find your statements very confusing, so I apologize. I think you are trying to say if something doesn't block line of effect it doesn't provide cover, but that is not true. In fact your quote includes the line, blocks line of effect or provide cover, suggesting these are not always the same thing.
Just because you have line of effect doesn't mean you don't have cover. Sure you can magic missle someone through a 1' hole in a wall but that wall is still between you and the target and therefore provides cover, just not total cover.
So Soft covers works against ranged attacks. Non-adjacent melee are treated as using ranged attacks, therefore if you are fighting a creature with reach and you have someone standing between you and them that person provides cover to both you and the creature with reach.
Soft cover is the only "special" type of cover that specifically mentions ranged attacks. It specifically leaves out melee attacks. While cover from reach weapons may be determined the same way as ranged attacks are, that does not mean that reach weapons are ranged attacks.
The problem I see in your logic is that you don't think that treating non-adjacent character as ranged attacks applies to soft cover only to cover.
However, that statement is prior to all the types of cover listed.
So when you are considering each type of cover you have to consider that in each definition of types of cover they have already established a rule regarding non-adjacent melee.
I believe that if soft cover provided cover to all non-adjacent attacks, the line would replace the word "ranged" with "non-adjacent." "Determining cover" is defined as "from this part-to this part." It does not change the type of attack from melee to ranged. It only changes the "from this part-to this part" section of the rules. All other types of cover affect both ranged AND melee attacks.
So for this part of our disagreements, I guess it is determined by the order of applying the rules. You seem to follow the logic as:
Is it ranged or melee? Melee
Is it reach? Yes
Since it is reach, it is ranged and cover applies.
Whereas I follow the logic as:
Is it ranged? No
Since it is not ranged, cover does not apply.
I cannot prove you are incorrect, but I think you are.
As for the rest of your argument I find your statements very confusing, so I apologize. I think you are trying to say if something doesn't block line of effect it doesn't provide cover, but that is not true. In fact your quote includes the line, blocks line of effect or provide cover, suggesting these are not always the same thing.
Just because you have line of effect doesn't mean you don't have cover. Sure you can magic missle someone through a 1' hole in a wall but that wall is still between you and the target and therefore provides cover, just not total cover.
Nothing actually describes what cover is. Nothing ever says anything like, "A non-moving, unattended object between an attack and a target that has the ability to deflect, absorb, or block the attack provides cover."
Without trying to be overly precise, the line I quoted says that if the line between two combatants passes through a square that provides cover, it provides cover.
That part of the statement is illogical, or at the very least circular. You can't define cover as something that provides cover. Until cover is defined, you cannot identify what cover is. That is why it is confusing.
It is exactly the same as defining an attack as when someone attacks. Without knowing what an attack is, you cannot identify when someone attacks.
Therefore, that line only tells us that two things provide cover: 1) something that blocks line of effect and 2) creatures. There is the possibility that the "something that provides cover" part is referring to all of the terrain parts in chapter 13 of the CRB that provide cover. But otherwise, there is no blanket term for what type of objects provide cover. This is a gaping hole in the cover rules.
According to the entire cover section in Chapter 8 of the CRB, 6 things provide cover:
1) Something that blocks line of effect
2) Something that provides cover (I guess specifically called out stuff like trees)
3) Creatures (ranged only)
4) Walls (melee only)
5) Low Obstacles (whatever that may be)
6) Arrowslit (which is the exact OPPOSITE of cover, it is a hole)
So that shoots a lot of holes into cover (see what I did there?):
1) If there is a 1' hole, it does not block line of effect.
2) The only things that "provide cover" explicitly are things in Chapter 13 of the CRB. I also believe some spell effects do.
3) The are two mentions of creatures providing cover. The first is under determining cover for ranged attacks. The second is under the soft cover section, which is specific to creatures, and only mentions ranged attacks. Creatures providing cover is never mentioned with melee attacks.
4) Walls only block melee weapons. It is hard to believe that it is true, but the exact sentence is, "When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall)." That would mean that if a wall is taller than a low wall (since they are specifically called out) it would not provided cover from ranged attacks if more than a 1' hole is present.
5) Low obstacles are poorly defined. Does a bale of hay count? It would stop/slow a sword strike but not a crossbow bolt. And low walls provide cover against all types of attacks (assuming correct distance from the wall)
6) Arrowslits are the actual holes in the wall. You "take cover" behind the wall, not the arrowslit. If you "take cover" behind the arrowslit, you are not "taking cover" at all. You are going to die. But it doesn't matter because walls don't provide cover to ranged attacks, a wall with an arrow slit has more than 1' square hole, which means it doesn't provide cover because it isn't explicitly called out as doing so AND it doesn't block line of effect.
All most all of those points are 100% ridiculous. The only one I think is correct is 3. I really believe soft cover only applies to ranged attacks, and not melee attacks for non-adjacent attackers.
But again, there are gaps in the rules which clearly leave it up to interpretation.
|
"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."
This pretty clearly says that reach weapons act as ranged weapons for the purposes of cover. Since Soft cover is a form of cover, then reach weapons are treated as ranged for the purposes of determining whether the target as soft cover to you or not.
No, not inherently. But if the cover is total, and you can't see through it it does grant total concealment (barring special abilities that sees through it). The point is, a single object, say a wall, can grant both total cover and total concealment.
As to reach weapons, it really depends on which rule wins in the order of application. If you are correct, it would be the only case where it would be disadvantageous to have a reach weapon. I really think the specific Soft Cover rules trump the more general Basic Cover rules.
That is the problem with how the game rules try to follow the specific trumps general but doesn't tell us which is which.
On another note, you have to watch out for the doors. Are you also assuming that they are 5' wide and open 180 degrees? The map shows them as about 4' wide. If that is the case, the 1' left in the square will provide cover. Height could be a problem too. The cover rules don't even mention it, but clearly height matters. If the door is 3' tall and 5' wide, why would a dog have a problem attacking through it? But clearly a human would have a much harder time with any type of swinging weapon.
The same applies to differing heights. Enough height can absolutely provide cover, but the rules are silent on that as well.
Just some thoughts. YMMV.
Good find Jeff. You definitely proved it. Thanks for linking it.
You do not provide cover to other characters with a shield or tower shield (unless there is a feat/ability that grants it.)
|
Also worth pointing out:
Moving Through a SquareYou can move through an unoccupied square without difficulty in most circumstances. Difficult terrain and a number of spell effects might hamper your movement through open spaces.
Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
This piece of information is in a quite different section from the main cover rules, but it's very important. Without it, it would be much easier to close in on reach monsters.
---
Also, the rules for attacking bigger creatures aren't quite as you list them;
Big Creatures and Cover: Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you.
So if you can reach even one square of a critter, it doesn't get melee cover from you. However, with ranged attacks you do need access to the furthest four corners of the entire creature, not just one square. (This was a surprise for me.)