Cover vs Concealment

[Charlie Overtorch]

Both cover and concealment require picking a corner of the attacker's square. However, it appears that the target picks in the case of concealment ("To determine whether you have concealment from a creature's ranged attack, choose a corner of the enemy's square") whereas the attacker picks in the case of cover ("To determine whether your target has cover from your attack, choose a corner of your square").

Am I reading this correctly and is this a rules difference from Pathfinder?

[Andy Glass]

This certainly seems a divergence from the Pathfinder rules (see the Concealment section of http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html)

[Charlie Overtorch]

Andy Glass wrote:

This certainly seems a divergence from the Pathfinder rules (see the Concealment section of http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html)

Thanks for the clarification, I wonder if this was an intentional change to make concealment easier to get.

[RumpinRufus]

Is this truly bizarre to anyone else? For example, you can get concealment from someone who is directly adjacent to you when both your squares are clear, because there is smoke next to them?

Concealment wrote:

To determine whether you have concealment from a creature’s ranged attack, choose a corner of the enemy’s square. If any line from this corner to any corner of your square passes through a square that provides concealment or the border of such a square, you have concealment.

For example, Y is you, E is the enemy, # is a fog cloud:

_._._
E#._
Y._._
_._._

So they put a gun to my chest and fire. Now, let's determine if they have concealment. I pick the top-right corner of their square and notice that I can draw a line from that corner of their square to the bottom-right corner of my own square, which passes through the border of a square that provides concealment. So therefore, I get concealment, even though there is literally nothing between us?

Am I interpreting that correctly? Is there a reason not to just determine concealment the same way cover is determined?

[LordRiffington]

I don't think you are. You have to be able to draw a line from a corner of your enemy's square to a corner of your square. In your example, there's no way to draw a line from your enemy's square to your square that goes through the fog cloud square.

EDIT: Missed the bit about the border. I wouldn't allow the same level of concealment as if one of you were in/behind the fog cloud square, but it's conceivable that you might get *some* concealment.