Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
This has always bothered me because I don't understand why you could it attack with something like a spear.
I could even understand concealment due to refraction but total cover seems a bit much.
Thoughts
|
I think that it's just a generic rule to cover as much situations as possible, but that doesn't quite fit well in specific ones.
Crystal clear waters are very different from muddy ones, completely submerged by a foot or two is different from being fifteen feet deep (and a water-born monster will shift easily from one to another), etc.
So, while a submerged creature only a few inches under the surface would enjoy a lesser bonus (partial concealment, maybe soft cover if the depth is enough to hinder attacks), a fully submerged and deep enough creature is pretty much out of reach.
Perhaps a few more steps with various degrees of protection would work better.
I understand that declaring it "DM's call" will make more than one brow frown, but that's his role as much as describing the scene or handling NPCs/monsters.
its probably got something to do with pathfinder's grid system
if you are swimming "on the surface" you are actually occupying the top 5' of water, if you are completely submerged you technically have at least 5' of water between you and the surface
even in crystal clear water you run into diffraction... but thats physics so i'll stop there
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a rule that has driven my players crazy to no end. Any tentacled sea beast can attack creatures on their ship with impunity thanks to reach and total cover, but no one on the ship can target the sea beast unless they are willing to go into the water or else have the Strike Back feat.
Ridiculous! It breaks not only common tropes, such as spear-fishing, but also common fantasy tropes, such as fighting off a giant squid!
Wow Ravingdork, I did not even think of that.
|
So ready your actions to shot with a bow at the big tentacle which is slamming at the ship? PCs sometimes pigeonhole themselves into thinking that everything should be served into a melee range. A huge tentacle monster (no, I am not talking about japanese movies) should profit at best from Cover, but not full Cover in those conditions.
@MichaelCullen
Try shooting something that you can't see 10 meters under water surface? It's a futile task. The rule is there for those drastic cases.
The creature has to be completely submerged for this to apply. And it actually makes sense. Water refracts differently than air. So the thing image you're aiming at might not be quite in the same spot that you think it is.
It also only affects things that go through the water. Physical attacks, attacking spells (i.e., ones that require an attack roll), etc. In short, stuff that you have to aim. Hence the Freedom of Movement exception - attacks aren't impeded like they ordinarily would be.
Also, if your giant squid is completely submerged and attacking people on a boat, it likely is doing so blinded, or at the very least against cover if not improved cover.
As for the spear-fishing thing, sure maybe that's a casualty of the generality of rule drafting.
Of course, the same could be said going from water to air. I'd also think it could be graded depending on depth of water. *shrug*
So ready your actions to shot with a bow at the big tentacle which is slamming at the ship? PCs sometimes pigeonhole themselves into thinking that everything should be served into a melee range. A huge tentacle monster (no, I am not talking about japanese movies) should profit at best from Cover, but not full Cover in those conditions.
@MichaelCullen
Try shooting something that you can't see 10 meters under water surface? It's a futile task. The rule is there for those drastic cases.
The argument would be whether a creature with its tentacles sticking out of the water is "completely submerged". A fair argument can be made that it isn't. You cannot technically target the tentacles in PF's rules, absent specific abilities allowing you to.
|
This is a rule that has driven my players crazy to no end. Any tentacled sea beast can attack creatures on their ship with impunity thanks to reach and total cover, but no one on the ship can target the sea beast unless they are willing to go into the water or else have the Strike Back feat.
Ready an action would also help, but I'd generally just allow them to attack the tentacles.
This is one of those situations where the round based system introduces problems... logically they should be able to strike at the tentacles while the tentacles are striking at them, but if we follow initiative order then the tentacles can be out of reach underwater when the PCs get their turn. Since that's an artefact of the framework I'd hand-wave it away and allow normal attacks... effectively keeping the tentacles above the water the whole time.
|
|
The argument would be whether a creature with its tentacles sticking out of the water is "completely submerged". A fair argument can be made that it isn't. You cannot technically target the tentacles in PF's rules, absent specific abilities allowing you to.So ready your actions to shot with a bow at the big tentacle which is slamming at the ship? PCs sometimes pigeonhole themselves into thinking that everything should be served into a melee range. A huge tentacle monster (no, I am not talking about japanese movies) should profit at best from Cover, but not full Cover in those conditions.
@MichaelCullen
Try shooting something that you can't see 10 meters under water surface? It's a futile task. The rule is there for those drastic cases.
Tentacle is part of creature sticking out of water so from that perspective, creature does not have total cover. We can put a larger debate if the RAW allows this or not, but GM should allow players some leeway here unless he is trying to win the fight. In these corner cases, it's probably just better for GM to invent some specific rules or design encounter in non-RAW manner.
This is a rule that has driven my players crazy to no end. Any tentacled sea beast can attack creatures on their ship with impunity thanks to reach and total cover, but no one on the ship can target the sea beast unless they are willing to go into the water or else have the Strike Back feat.Ready an action would also help, but I'd generally just allow them to attack the tentacles.
This is one of those situations where the round based system introduces problems... logically they should be able to strike at the tentacles while the tentacles are striking at them, but if we follow initiative order then the tentacles can be out of reach underwater when the PCs get their turn. Since that's an artefact of the framework I'd hand-wave it away and allow normal attacks... effectively keeping the tentacles above the water the whole time.
you don't haaave to handwave it, you could do everything through readied actions
|
|
you don't haaave to handwave it, you could do everything through readied actions
You can normally only ready a standard action. Thus, the tentacle monster would be getting full attacks while the PCs would be getting one attack each. Ergo... hand wave ('These are not the game mechanics you are looking for') to allow PCs full attacks on tentacles in range.
you don't haaave to handwave it, you could do everything through readied actionsYou can normally only ready a standard action. Thus, the tentacle monster would be getting full attacks while the PCs would be getting one attack each. Ergo... hand wave ('These are not the game mechanics you are looking for') to allow PCs full attacks on tentacles in range.
oh, gotcha, yeah the standard rules definitley gimp players in this case
You can't ready an action to shoot the creature without Strike Back, since it's entire legal targeting space (its hit box if you will) is entirely submerged underwater.
Its the same premise you get on land: If a giant is hitting you with its club from 20 feet away, and you only have a non-reach melee weapon, you can't target him without moving up and putting his space within your reach, not even with readied actions.
It's totally stupid, and I don't think the Strike Back feat should exist, but that's the RAW.
You can't ready an action to shoot the creature without Strike Back, since it's entire legal targeting space (its hit box if you will) is entirely submerged underwater.
Its the same premise you get on land: If a giant is hitting you with its club from 20 feet away, and you only have a non-reach melee weapon, you can't target him without moving up and putting his space within your reach, not even with readied actions.
It's totally stupid, and I don't think the Strike Back feat should exist, but that's the RAW.
oh damn, ive never actually read that one before. that is a pretty big issue but i see why it exists, it keeps people from getting more op attacks than normal.
my response to a kraken or whatever would be hostile levitation in all honesty, assuming your gm lets you use it to get them out of the water
You can't target something with total cover, not even with a spell like hostile levitation, Ridiculon.
While it only mentions 'cover from land' it is reasonable to conclude that this cover is actually present in both directions. The rules are written from a land creature biased perspective, and since it doesn't specifically address attacking the land from the water, deciding that whatever cover exists goes in both directions makes a fair amount of sense.
Personally, I would house rule this to not include melee attacks, since squids should indeed be able to reach their tentacles out of the water and pluck hapless sailors off of ships, and I would probably allow a basic readied action to work against that attack just like an incorporeal creatures attack from a wall. That is house rules territory though.
This is a rule that has driven my players crazy to no end.
...
Ridiculous!
If both you and your players don't like it, then why the heck does it exist in your games anyway?
You can't target something with total cover, not even with hostile levitation, Ridiculon.
Actually the 'water cover' is unique in this way, in that you can make any non-attack roll magical attack just fine.
waaaaaaaait a minute, look at it:
Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
last i checked boats/ships, flying creatures, and waterwalking creatures don't count as "land" or "land-bound" opponents
You can't target something with total cover, not even with hostile levitation, Ridiculon.Actually the 'water cover' is unique in this way, in that you can make any non-attack roll magical attack just fine.
Ah. Nice catch!
waaaaaaaait a minute, look at it:
Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
last i checked boats/ships, flying creatures, and waterwalking creatures don't count as "land" or "land-bound" opponents
So you can spearfish from the boat, but not from the shore? You're only making it more ridiculous, Ridiculon!
I believe it far more likely to be referring to being above or below the waterline, and that it is just poorly worded.
So you can spearfish from the boat, but not from the shore? You're only making it more ridiculous, Ridiculon!
I believe it far more likely to be referring to being above or below the waterline, and that it is just poorly worded.
haha, half of what you want from the RAW is better than getting nothing from the RAW, at least here.
besides, spearfishing is a skill/profession. if you want to spear fish from the shore put ranks in it and have a ball, if you want to shoot a kraken get a bigger boat.
also theres a reason i chose my name
Water rules regarding cover are good. However, it should be partial-cover-total cover say at no depth, 5 feet, 10 feet.
When a water beast has attacked the party they've had to play smart, with readied actions. In this case I let them damage the tentacles as if it was the beast, but never kill it, just enough damage piled on to make it desist.
@MichaelCullen
Try shooting something that you can't see 10 meters under water surface? It's a futile task. The rule is there for those drastic cases.
If the rules were that the submerged creature benefited from a displacement type effect due to refraction, I could see that. I could even see total concealment. But to say that the surface of the water is an unpenetrable barrier (total cover) just seems silly.
Sure shooting at something 10 meters (32 feet) underwater would be near futile. It would take a -12 to hit. But for things a little closer to the surface... bow fishing
Tentacle is part of creature sticking out of water so from that perspective, creature does not have total cover. We can put a larger debate if the RAW allows this or not, but GM should allow players some leeway here unless he is trying to win the fight. In these corner cases, it's probably just better for GM to invent some specific rules or design encounter in non-RAW manner.The argument would be whether a creature with its tentacles sticking out of the water is "completely submerged". A fair argument can be made that it isn't. You cannot technically target the tentacles in PF's rules, absent specific abilities allowing you to.So ready your actions to shot with a bow at the big tentacle which is slamming at the ship? PCs sometimes pigeonhole themselves into thinking that everything should be served into a melee range. A huge tentacle monster (no, I am not talking about japanese movies) should profit at best from Cover, but not full Cover in those conditions.
@MichaelCullen
Try shooting something that you can't see 10 meters under water surface? It's a futile task. The rule is there for those drastic cases.
That's actually how I'd probably handle it: not "totally submerged" if it's out attacking.
Also remember, if it's the giant squid attacking the boat scenario, there's a good chance that the squid is attacking blindly. The people on the boat likely have total cover (or at least cover/improved cover depending on where they're standing) from direct attacks from the squid (depending on where it is attack from as well).
You could probably make an interesting quasi-hazard type encounter where tentacles slam down on the deck at somewhat random, giving reflex saves, etc. to avoid damage, and maybe give them an opportunity to attack the tentacles as slam down around them. If they get hit, there's a chance they get grabbed. Something akin to the Kraken attacking the Black Pearl in that Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Could probably be a pretty fun encounter. Maybe not precisely by the rules, but you could make it fun and memorable.
Also remember, if it's the giant squid attacking the boat scenario, there's a good chance that the squid is attacking blindly. The people on the boat likely have total cover (or at least cover/improved cover depending on where they're standing) from direct attacks from the squid (depending on where it is attack from as well).
There are officially published fights where the sea monster hides underneath the PCs' ship and basically attacks characters on deck with near impunity.
I'm afraid I don't recall which source, though. Skull and Shackles maybe?
Also remember, if it's the giant squid attacking the boat scenario, there's a good chance that the squid is attacking blindly. The people on the boat likely have total cover (or at least cover/improved cover depending on where they're standing) from direct attacks from the squid (depending on where it is attack from as well).There are officially published fights where the sea monster hides underneath the PCs' ship and basically attacks characters on deck with near impunity.
I'm afraid I don't recall which source, though. Skull and Shackles maybe?
im coming to the same conclusion as i did when i read all those threads about earth glide and earth elementals from 2014:
you should probably figure out a better way to fight creatures that have an unfair advantage over you instead of getting hung up on their unfair advantage
|
This is a rule that has driven my players crazy to no end. Any tentacled sea beast can attack creatures on their ship with impunity thanks to reach and total cover, but no one on the ship can target the sea beast unless they are willing to go into the water or else have the Strike Back feat.
Ridiculous! It breaks not only common tropes, such as spear-fishing, but also common fantasy tropes, such as fighting off a giant squid!
Giant squid cannot use it's reach around a corner i.e. ship; therefore giant squid must make climb check on the side of ship to have line of sight and line of effect to the sailors on the upper deck. Done. Sailors can now be adjacent to giant squid or use reach weapons or ranged weapons. There. Murderhobo cosmic balance restored.
]Giant squid cannot use it's reach around a corner i.e. ship; therefore giant squid must make climb check on the side of ship to have line of sight and line of effect to the sailors on the upper deck. Done. Sailors can now be adjacent to giant squid or use reach weapons or ranged weapons. There. Murderhobo cosmic balance restored.
well, except it can totally do that with its 30' reach
|
|
Also I'd say the following would apply to a sea creature floating 10 feet below the sailors, regardless how big it is, until the creature climbs on the sides or is big enough to rotate the ship:
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.
Also keep in mind the sailors are 10 feet above sea level and thus have +1 to hit vs. the sea creature (with melee weapons)
Also the creature, when climbing to the side to have line of sight on sailors, probably lose its cover entirely or is at the very least downgraded to Partial Cover (just +2 to AC)
|
|
]Giant squid cannot use it's reach around a corner i.e. ship; therefore giant squid must make climb check on the side of ship to have line of sight and line of effect to the sailors on the upper deck. Done. Sailors can now be adjacent to giant squid or use reach weapons or ranged weapons. There. Murderhobo cosmic balance restored.well, except it can totally do that with its 30' reach
Doesn't matter how long his tentacle is, 'cause:
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.
Also remember, if it's the giant squid attacking the boat scenario, there's a good chance that the squid is attacking blindly. The people on the boat likely have total cover (or at least cover/improved cover depending on where they're standing) from direct attacks from the squid (depending on where it is attack from as well).There are officially published fights where the sea monster hides underneath the PCs' ship and basically attacks characters on deck with near impunity.
I'm afraid I don't recall which source, though. Skull and Shackles maybe?
Not familiar with the AP, but that's probably true. Regardless, I'm just saying if you're running this as a GM (or rather, if I'm running this as GM), I'll probably tweak the encounter a bit. It seems like the giant squid engulfing the boat trope (which can be fun and exciting) should probably play out a little differently than straight-forward attack rolls.
]Giant squid cannot use it's reach around a corner i.e. ship; therefore giant squid must make climb check on the side of ship to have line of sight and line of effect to the sailors on the upper deck. Done. Sailors can now be adjacent to giant squid or use reach weapons or ranged weapons. There. Murderhobo cosmic balance restored.well, except it can totally do that with its 30' reachDoesn't matter how long his tentacle is, 'cause:
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.
right, with 30' to work with the squid can draw a line up the side of the boat and onto the deck, the rule does not say the line has to be straight, just that it has to be continuous
A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.
Admittedly, that's in the Magic section, but still.
|
|
right, with 30' to work with the squid can draw a line up the side of the boat and onto the deck, the rule does not say the line has to be straight, just that it has to be continuous]Giant squid cannot use it's reach around a corner i.e. ship; therefore giant squid must make climb check on the side of ship to have line of sight and line of effect to the sailors on the upper deck. Done. Sailors can now be adjacent to giant squid or use reach weapons or ranged weapons. There. Murderhobo cosmic balance restored.well, except it can totally do that with its 30' reachDoesn't matter how long his tentacle is, 'cause:
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.
I'll stop right there, as we'll argue for days, seeing that you believe the line doesn't have to be straight. I will never accept this BS as a GM (or even a player), so let's agree to disagree. LOL!
Even if I grant you the possibility of a "non linear" reach attack by tentacled beasts, unless the beast has eyes on its tentacles then it's attacking at 50% miss chance... ;)
right, with 30' to work with the squid can draw a line up the side of the boat and onto the deck, the rule does not say the line has to be straight, just that it has to be continuous
So you presume nothing ever has cover unless it is in a sealed box?
Drawing a line from one point to another does indeed imply that you are drawing a straight line.
I'll stop right there, as we'll argue for days, seeing that you believe the line doesn't have to be straight. I will never accept this BS as a GM (or even a player), so let's agree to disagree. LOL!
Even if I grant you the possibility of a "non linear" reach attack by tentacled beasts, unless the beast has eyes on its tentacles then it's attacking at 50% miss chance... ;)
I wasnt trying to kill the 50% miss chance, i was just saying that they could still attack from under the ship.
its the same concept as a splash weapon really, you can aim at a square you think something occupies and take the miss chance for total cover, only the squid's tentacles are a line AoE instead of a circle/square
So you presume nothing ever has cover unless it is in a sealed box?
Drawing a line from one point to another does indeed imply that you are drawing a straight line.
no, i presume that when a creature is attacking with a 30' tentacle that it can probably bend it around stuff, otherwise how would it ever pick anything up or swim in this case?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The very definition of "line" in both the game and the real world require it to be straight. If it isn't straight, it is not by definition, a line, but rather a curve, ray, squiggle, or some other such thing.
The very definition of "line" in both the game and the real world require it to be straight. If it isn't straight, it is not by definition, a line, but rather a curve, ray, squiggle, or some other such thing.
Well, sure, but a squiggle on the battlemat might be an approximation of a straight line in the real world, right?
so we are just going to assume that giant squids are equiped with 4 30' polearms then?
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.
I'll stop right there, as we'll argue for days, seeing that you believe the line doesn't have to be straight. I will never accept this BS as a GM (or even a player), so let's agree to disagree. LOL!
Even if I grant you the possibility of a "non linear" reach attack by tentacled beasts, unless the beast has eyes on its tentacles then it's attacking at 50% miss chance... ;)
actually they wouldnt have total cover, the would have total concealment:
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
|
|
so we are just going to assume that giant squids are equiped with 4 30' polearms then?
That would be an excellent way to remember how to apply the squid's reach properly yes (the squid *does* have the added benefit of being able to attack into her adjacent squares though, unlike polearm wielders...)
Edit: it's not 4 x 30', but 3 x 30' + 1 x 15', just for precision's sake i.e.:
Melee bite +14 (2d6+7), 2 arms +14 (1d6+7), tentacles +12 (4d6+3/19-20 plus grab)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 15 ft. (30 ft. with arms and tentacles)
so we are just going to assume that giant squids are equiped with 4 30' polearms then?
We are in the rules forum, and the rules make no distinction between the two.
A house rule for such a thing would be a possibility, but you can't pretend such a rule is RAW with sophistry about not requiring a straight line.
so we are just going to assume that giant squids are equiped with 4 30' polearms then?We are in the rules forum, and the rules make no distinction between the two.
A house rule for such a thing would be a possibility, but you can't pretend such a rule is RAW with sophistry about not requiring a straight line.
dont have to house rule it, we were just looking at the wrong rule. when you have line of effect but not line of sight you are under total concealment, not total cover
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
Line of effect is also a straight line between two points. If the thing preventing you from seeing is solid, you don't have line of effect.
You can have a straight line of effect curved around a three dimensional shape, though, right?
Line of effect is also a straight line between two points. If the thing preventing you from seeing is solid, you don't have line of effect.
if that is true then you cannot throw things over obstacles. you cannot use grappling hooks, you cannot toss someone's gear over a wall after they have climbed over it, you cannot hear someone if you can't see them, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Line of effect is also a straight line between two points. If the thing preventing you from seeing is solid, you don't have line of effect.if that is true then you cannot throw things over obstacles. you cannot use grappling hooks, you cannot toss someone's gear over a wall after they have climbed over it, you cannot hear someone if you can't see them, etc.
Throwing thing over obstacles: No rules exist for indirect fire.
Grappling Hooks: Special rules exist for these.Throwing Gear Over a wall: As combat attack absolutely not part of the rules. As a non combat action, any reasonable GM would allow.
Hearing: Perception doesn't require line of effect. Visual perception requires line of sight (a straight line in case you were curious).
They are also the same rules that prevent you from firing arrows around corners or through closed doors. You can't reasonably interpret the wording to allow one but not the other.
Line of effect is also a straight line between two points. If the thing preventing you from seeing is solid, you don't have line of effect.if that is true then you cannot throw things over obstacles. you cannot use grappling hooks, you cannot toss someone's gear over a wall after they have climbed over it, you cannot hear someone if you can't see them, etc.Throwing thing over obstacles: No rules exist for indirect fire.
Grappling Hooks: Special rules exist for these.
Throwing Gear Over a wall: As combat attack absolutely not part of the rules. As a non combat action, any reasonable GM would allow.
Hearing: Perception doesn't require line of effect. Visual perception requires line of sight (a straight line in case you were curious).They are also the same rules that prevent you from firing arrows around corners or through closed doors. You can't reasonably interpret the wording to allow one but not the other.
yes, there is a rule that covers indirect fire, its pretty useful when you are throwing bombs or large rocks over walls, ive quoted it twice now and here it is a third time:
Total Concealment: If you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies. A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy with total concealment has a 50% miss chance (instead of the normal 20% miss chance for an opponent with concealment).
here is the rule for a grappling hook:
Grappling Hook: Throwing a grappling hook requires a ranged attack roll, treating the hook as a thrown weapon with a range increment of 10 feet. Objects with ample places to catch the hook have an AC of 5
it is a thrown object, it wont do you much good to throw a grappling hook onto a roof since in your world you cannot hit anything on the roof (including the roof itself) from the ground
According to your rules I can hear a mole 10 feet under the earth because they are close enough to hear and i need neither line of sight nor line of effect for perception roles related to hearing.