yep. give cover as normal. if the attack hits the 4 ac gap between normal AC and cover, you potentially hit the person between. Compare the attack roll to the 'horse's' ac and if it hits, you hit the cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that's a house-rule. The rules don't handle this very well, since a creature isn't enough to block all shots, but it's not nothing.
If you like that house-rule, though, but not the potential for abuse, you might apply the 50% miss chance after "hitting" the 4 AC gap. If the result is a miss, then the attack (aimed at something else entirely) hit in an altogether ineffectual manner.
It can get pretty silly at times if taken too literally.
In a 10' wide, 10' tall corridor, a gelatinous cube (which fills literally all available space) still only incurs the +4 AC to the shot.
I think quite a lot of it should come down to GM interpretation. We have literal rules which are fine for PFS, but situations like this are far more likely to come up in non-PFS scenarios, hence Rule Zero.
yeah, sorry. entirely a houserule, and i should have mentioned in a rules thread.
its an extrapolation and a mostly reasonable one, but in the end the rules are silent on this.
my first Gm had our sharpshooter roll three twenty sided dice, and if he got less than 50 then he accidentally dismembered the guy in between. (six sided die to figure out what was lost) it was hilarious, the player between him and the dragon was praying at the table hoping it wouldn't land on 1 so he could keep his head, instead he took a shot to the hip, and was paralyzed. My GM was a ruthless fellow. especially to the sharpshooter, who insisted on taking all the "trick-Shots" I was luckier, I had a mace and a crossbow, and noone in my line of sight except the enemy
The absurdity of the gelatinous cube situation highlights the inherent problem with interpreting game rules in the context of real-world physics or even common sense. Sometimes rule 0 is all you have.
Nothing in between the attacker and the target is hit unless it is something like a wall which takes up the entire square. In PF you only hit what you aim for, which is why you can't accidently shoot something behind the target.
As for the gelatinous cube the creature does not take up the entire area it occupies, just like other creatures don't.
As for the gelatinous cube the creature does not take up the entire area it occupies, just like other creatures don't.
Gelatinous cubes are generally 10 feet to a side and weigh upward of 15,000 pounds [...]
It actually literally does take up the entire area it occupies.
Even if you take "generally" to mean an approximation, and that the cube in particular doesn't take the entire space, you still have at most a couple of inches of room between the cube and the adjacent walls, which is exceedingly difficult to make a shot through when you have to be against the wall and aiming exceedingly carefully. It's, at best, a far harder shot than simply not hitting Fighter Steve when trying to hit the orc he's fighting and in the way of.
It is an old 3.5 rule that was removed. So now the horse should provide cover without being seen or hit.
It's not been completely removed. The spell Stone Shield still has that rule, and afaik there are some more references.
Yeah don't overthink or your head will explode. I'd roll attack as normal with the cover penalty. If it misses within 4 say it got deflected by something.
The gelatinous cube should fill every last bit of gap to keep the wall and floors clear of the poop of other dwellers.
|
As for the gelatinous cube the creature does not take up the entire area it occupies, just like other creatures don't.Gelatinous cubes are generally 10 feet to a side and weigh upward of 15,000 pounds [...]It actually literally does take up the entire area it occupies.
Even if you take "generally" to mean an approximation, and that the cube in particular doesn't take the entire space, you still have at most a couple of inches of room between the cube and the adjacent walls, which is exceedingly difficult to make a shot through when you have to be against the wall and aiming exceedingly carefully. It's, at best, a far harder shot than simply not hitting Fighter Steve when trying to hit the orc he's fighting and in the way of.
Remember that the cube change shape to move, extending and retracting parts of its body, and can somewhat change its shape, so there are gaps. Even if the turn based system give us the perception of an immobile cube while the ranged attack is made, actually the player and cube actions happen at the same time, not sequentially, so the ranged attack happen while the cube is moving or attacking.
But even with that, if the combat was in a 10'x10' corridor and a target was behind a gelatinous cube, I would use this rule:
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.
I'm with Thunderrstar:
- an invisible horse in the line of the archer to the target would give the target improved cover (horse = large). If the arrow doesn't hit because of the cover I'd roll the miss chance (50%) against the invisible horse, if the attack would have hit the invisible horse AC.
- a gelatinous cube in the line of the archer to the target would give the target total cover (line of sight, but no line of effect). I'd apply the attack roll against the GC's AC and let the arrow stick there 'in thin air'.
Strange situations like this are sometimes easier to rule out if you are using the armor as DR rules (where hitting and damaging are separated a bit). But even then, it wouldn't be cut and dry. The issue is you have a single roll that says either a: you hit and injured your target - or b: you missed your target OR hit it and didn't penetrate it's armor. There is no rule to determine when you DO "miss" - WHY did you miss (poor aim, parried attack, insufficient penetration, or blocked by an obstacle). It's a victim of the abstraction necessary to make the game continue to move along.
As for the gelatinous cube the creature does not take up the entire area it occupies, just like other creatures don't.Gelatinous cubes are generally 10 feet to a side and weigh upward of 15,000 pounds [...]It actually literally does take up the entire area it occupies.
Even if you take "generally" to mean an approximation, and that the cube in particular doesn't take the entire space, you still have at most a couple of inches of room between the cube and the adjacent walls, which is exceedingly difficult to make a shot through when you have to be against the wall and aiming exceedingly carefully. It's, at best, a far harder shot than simply not hitting Fighter Steve when trying to hit the orc he's fighting and in the way of.
I'm not saying the rule is logical. There are logic holes all over the game, but creatures not taking up entire squares is part of the explanation by devs, and the game is not a simulation. It is an abstraction. By the rules there is no way to hit something you are not aiming for. Creatures only provide soft cover.
If we want to be realistic that shield and your arm will be broken trying to deflect a blow from a giant or other very big creature.
my first Gm had our sharpshooter roll three twenty sided dice, and if he got less than 50 then he accidentally dismembered the guy in between. (six sided die to figure out what was lost) it was hilarious, the player between him and the dragon was praying at the table hoping it wouldn't land on 1 so he could keep his head, instead he took a shot to the hip, and was paralyzed. My GM was a ruthless fellow. especially to the sharpshooter, who insisted on taking all the "trick-Shots" I was luckier, I had a mace and a crossbow, and noone in my line of sight except the enemy
I dunno. Ruthless isn't necessarily the word I'd use. I'd go for passive-aggressive, maybe.
That's a DM who isn't willing to say "no" to a reasonable request. Instead, he throws a dice roll in, so you can't blame him for the result. 3d20 is an average of 31.5. Requiring you to roll 50 means each d20 needs to be almost 17. With one d20 and asking for a 17, you've at least got a 20% chance of pulling 17. With three, you're invoking a bell curve. Adding more dice pulls the results closer to the (31.5) average.
Worse, the DM imposed a 1 in 6 chance of decapitating someone in the way of your shot. Considering that except for very low level, even a critical hit with an arrow isn't going to one-shot kill a target, it's extra sadistic that this is the DM's idea of a reasonable mishap.
Now, I'm guessing this was a million years ago, in an era where neither of you knew the rules of the game, and "making stuff up" was the way of the DM, but this kind of arbitrary "no without saying no" stuff is precisely why I play Pathfinder instead of other, rules-light systems. The rules tell me what does and doesn't work, and how. I don't have to rely on a DM's mood to get a job done. If I fail at something, it's on me.
TL;DR: Wow, just wow.
I'm not saying the rule is logical. There are logic holes all over the game, but creatures not taking up entire squares is part of the explanation by devs, and the game is not a simulation. It is an abstraction. By the rules there is no way to hit something you are not aiming for. Creatures only provide soft cover.
If we want to be realistic that shield and your arm will be broken trying to deflect a blow from a giant or other very big creature.
I think you're making my point for me. It's obvious that, by the rules, you can hit a target "through" the cube with nothing more than the increased AC from soft cover.
The entire point I was trying to make is that there exist situations which warrant rule zero on soft cover rules, because if you play strictly by the book (in my opinion, the worst possible way to play), you're going to have absurd abstract situations.