| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So the question if in the title, do prone characters provide soft cover? This is important because either way this can be exploited.
Possibility 1) Yes they provide cover.
Exploitation: I stand behind my prone buddy. He gets a bonus to AC from prone, I get a bonus from being behind him. My buddy gets to be a relatively safe and very effective meat shield.
Possibility 2) No they do not provide cover.
Exploitation: Ranked firing. IN a hallway this could be done pretty easily. Imagine 5 PCs lined up in a 5ft wide hall facing one or multiple opponents. my meat shield in front readies and action to stand up, and drops prone, the rest of my PCs delay as needed to in order fire then drop prone, then my meat shield stands up. Next turn goes the same except that my pew pew PCs stand, shoot, and then drop prone. All my PCs get cover except my meat shield, but don't have to shoot through cover.
There are other possible exploitations I am sure, these two are just a couple that came to mind.
|
It would be helpful to invoke the height considerations found in the "Low Obstacles and Cover" and "Partial Cover" rules. With those in mind you can say that, given two characters of roughly the same size,
1) if one character is prone in front of the other who is standing, the prone character provides cover to the standing character. But the prone character constitutes a "low obstacle" (only effective against enemies within six tiles) and also leaves the standing character more than half exposed (bonus reduced to +2).
and
2) if both characters are prone in a row, the character in front then provides non-partial soft cover (+4 AC bonus) but still constitutes a low obstacle (effective only within six tiles). If there are five such characters in a row, the character at the back of the row would only receive any cover from the closest 2-3 allies, and only against enemies within two tiles in front of the row. The back character would also receive a -16 penalty to ranged attacks.
So the question if in the title, do prone characters provide soft cover? This is important because either way this can be exploited.
Possibility 1) Yes they provide cover.
Exploitation: I stand behind my prone buddy. He gets a bonus to AC from prone, I get a bonus from being behind him. My buddy gets to be a relatively safe and very effective meat shield.
Possibility 2) No they do not provide cover.
Exploitation: Ranked firing. IN a hallway this could be done pretty easily. Imagine 5 PCs lined up in a 5ft wide hall facing one or multiple opponents. my meat shield in front readies and action to stand up, and drops prone, the rest of my PCs delay as needed to in order fire then drop prone, then my meat shield stands up. Next turn goes the same except that my pew pew PCs stand, shoot, and then drop prone. All my PCs get cover except my meat shield, but don't have to shoot through cover.
There are other possible exploitations I am sure, these two are just a couple that came to mind.
Wow, interesting food for thought.
Alternately, you could have 1 prone (-4 vs ranged), one kneeling (-2 with soft cover from prone PC), one standing (-2 or -4 from kneeling PC).
Just waiting now for the tower shields (aka sci-fi riot shields).
Depending on how this is rules wise I could easily see ranked fire being a very effective strategy.
Doesn't cover work both ways now?
But yes, it is a silly question of whether a prone ally gives cover to a standing shooter. It's a No.
Now if you want to discuss a prone ally giving cover to a standing enemy while you are prone behind your ally, that might be questionable.
Yes cover works both ways, that is not a question. The reason I ask the question is that the rules are not perfectly clear on this point and while I agree with your logic, others may not. What is or isn't logical is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. If a prone character does not provide cover clever ordering of your team's turns can exploit soft cover to great advantage in certain situations. The worst example of how to exploit this is in my first post. Either way I think that there are some real advantages to understanding how this rule can be used whichever way the game is meant to function.
I would like to point out also that ordering a team's turns to exploit soft cover is not unrealistic. Any trained group would be capable of doing so, in effect this is why ranked firing of weapons lasted as long as it did in real life, it was extremely effective when guns were slow to load.
What I'm curious about is why you would want to take the cover penalty while shooting from behind a prone ally. Assuming they are cumulative, you'd be at -8 or higher to hit by the 5th guy back.
I would like to point out also that ordering a team's turns to exploit soft cover is not unrealistic. Any trained group would be capable of doing so, in effect this is why ranked firing of weapons lasted as long as it did in real life, it was extremely effective when guns were slow to load.
You wouldn't do it if prone allies provide cover, if that is the case you would do things such as I laid out in the first possibility. Basically just put people like mystics or envoys who aren't shooting behind a prone ally anytime melee is not a threat.
You bring up a third possibility, that a prone/kneeling character provides low cover, which would be a very exploitable situation indeed.
I'm of the opinion that non-allies shouldn't provide cover. If I'm shooting at someone, do I really care if I hit the guy or his friend kneeling in from of him?
*cough* Its highly dubious that a kneeling ally ( or a three foot high wall ) would provide your opponent with cover, seeing as it doesn't interfere with your sightline or fireline at all. For something to grant cover penalties, it still actually does have to obstruct, and not all obstructions go both ways.
What is all this talk about kneeling? The word "kneel" doesn't even appear in the Core book according to my PDF search.
You're either prone, or you're not.
Sanity says no.
And yes virginia there is a sanity clause.
@ Ravingdork
Just because there isn't a game mechanic associated with kneeling doesn't mean it doesn't exist. From what I can tell a kneeling character would be considered prone according to the game. But a person kneeling would certainly be more cover than a person lying on their belly which is the traditional meaning of prone. It's not as if people in a starfinder universe can't kneel, it's just that there is no mechanical difference between kneeling and being on your belly.
So if in game kneeling is prone, but a kneeling character is 3 feet high or a low obstical a prone character CAN provide cover.
Now I'm not saying that this is the case, but however prone and soft cover interact it may be used to advantage. Also it currently is not clear in the rules.
Edited to expand my thoughts
The only requirement for soft cover is the existence of another creature between the attacker and the target. If the impeding creature were prone, more than half of the target would be visible making it partial cover.
However, this goes both ways. Since you are firing over your own team mate, your target also gets soft cover. It does not matter that the target is 100% visible from your vantage point, the only requirement was a creature between you. He is more than 50% visible, and perhaps even 100% visible, making it partial cover.
The prone character has the same penalty to attack as his bonus to AC. The character firing over his team mate is giving the same AC bonus to his targets that he is receiving. It is a net neutral game of exchanged bonus/penalties it seems fine in my opinion.
@ Ravingdork
From what I can tell a kneeling character would be considered prone according to the game.
"If you are lying on the ground, you are prone." The status description states "You are lying on the ground." That is how the rules are written, there is no room to conflate kneeling with the prone position.
@ manshrimp
That's fine, so what is it when your character is in fact in a kneeling position? Or is this a prohibited state of being in the starfinder universe? Is the starfinder universe binary in re cards position, you either stand or lie on your belly?
Sorry I know this sounds accusatory, it's not meant to be, I'm just frustrated with how kneeling isn't addressed in the book and it arguments that has created.
So....
Soft Cover specifically calls out creatures. It says you get +4 AC against ranged attacks. That is all it says here under Soft Cover (related to AC).
Partial cover says that if more than half of you is visible, you only get +2 vs. AC. So if a creature between you and your target is prone, I would use this rule.
However, Low Obstacles has a rule that could come into play. The example is a wall that is half your height). It says that low obstacles only apply to creatures within 30 feet. Also the attacker ignores the cover if he is closer to the target than the target is. So...If a soldier is 60 away from the target and has a prone creature adjacent to him, would the solider get the +2 to AC but ignore the 'low obstacle' of the prone character adjacent to him? I would argue yes. Also, the prone character can shoot (ranged attack) without penalty.
Let's expand. A vest character is 60 away from a target. His ysoki buddy is adjacent to him and stands directly between the vesk and the target. I would argue the vesk gets partial cover (+2 to ac) and ignores the ysoki if the target is over 30 feet away from him.
As you can see there's a lot of possibilities, what about a large creature behind a small creature? It could get very complicated, however I expect that there will be a simple ruling that may not make sense in all situations, but will in most that will be "THE" rule.
"If you are lying on the ground, you are prone." The status description states "You are lying on the ground." That is how the rules are written, there is no room to conflate kneeling with the prone position.@ Ravingdork
From what I can tell a kneeling character would be considered prone according to the game.
Your statement ignores the big preface - IF.
If you are lying on the ground, you are prone.
If you are standing, you are not prone.
If you are kneeling, you are....what? Based on your assessment, is this standing or prone? If you are crouching (aka EVERY video game inclusion of a movement) you are...what?
Even if there is no other mechanic for a rule, it would be nice to know as a GM that I can say 'crouching or kneeling = prone' (or whatever it works out to be).
I agree with baggageboy, that telling a PC they can only stand or lie on the ground is a bit of a stretch.
So you are standing? Cause last I checked I couldn't run 30ft while kneeling....
Until we get a sourcebook that expands the available combat postures (Pact World Kneelers or something), we are pretty much officially stuck either prone or standing.
Kneeling might be missing due to action granularity. If dropping prone is a swift action and standing up is a move action, what sort of actions would kneeling take? If it doesn't take actions, either it will generate automatic benefits (and every firefight will be fought from the kneeling position) or the benefits generated are too small to matter (and can be treated as flavor text with combatants dashing here and there, kneeling to fire for their standard action and moving again next round).
Nothing seems to state that cover and prone condition do not stack, so why not fluff prone condition adjacent to low cover as kneeling? The character seeks tactical advantage (swift action) but sacrifices mobility (melee penalties, need to expend a move action to regain ability to move freely). I would probably allow characters to treat low obstacles as regular cover if they are willing to drop prone next to them, even if the obstacle would not typically provide more than partial cover (or turn no cover to partial cover in some cases). If you want to kneel without cover, I'd still make you choose between prone and standing postures, however.
The original question; I would not allow cover from a prone character. Unless the second character would go prone as well, and then first character would block the second character. As for case 2 in that post; go for it if someone volunteers as the meat shield! Use tactics to confound your enemy. And hope they don't surround you or bring plasma rifles if you take too much time leapfrogging. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think one's target profile is similar enough in size to make little difference from standing & kneeling (with the lessened maneuverability making up for that difference).
And if there was a kneeling (half & half) would one argue for "stooping" (3/4 up) or "crawling" (1/4 up). Then we'd have GURPS, which I love as a system, but which has one-second rounds built for that sort of minutiae. SF is a much more abstract game where we storytell to smooth out the narrative.
Or...
Houserule: Since it's half-prone, give half benefits & penalties. It's free to enter, but swift to stand or go prone from.
Don't like houserules?
Um...sorry? Right now, kneeling is flavor as it has no rules effect. You have to choose "standing" or "prone" as to which mechanics your PC has going, but in either instance can call it "kneeling" or "crouching" or "ducking" whatever you want, just with no effect other than that for standing or prone.
Examples of flavor
-Maybe kneeling is when you attack defensively (or take a full defense action), losing a bit to aim (or stay alert) because you're focused on staying low more than aiming steady.
-Or the opposite, when you're so focused on taking the shot (no penalties because you're braced by kneeling) that melee can hit you easily, but still low & alert to distant enemies so as to get an AC bonus vs. ranged. Effectively "prone" with the PC needing a beat (move action) to get their bearings & stand when they wish to move again.
-Maybe kneeling varies. It reflects one PC's Dex to AC as they nimbly move into and out of different positions (still "standing") that would hamper down a clumsy PC who has to take the "prone" status to kneel because they're that inept.
-Kneeling could explain why the shooter hits the guy in the second row despite cover. "Ouch! Why'd you kneel?" "Sorry. I didn't know the metagame well enough to know I couldn't get hit when they aimed at you."
Of course, then with walls for cover the GM has to make the call as to how low you can go while remaining standing because that will likely always be too situational to pin down with rigorous rules. And with all these alien PCs with body types forced into S or M sizes, loose rules is about all we should expect. For the sake of swiftness, I wouldn't want too much here anyway.
So you are standing? Cause last I checked I couldn't run 30ft while kneeling....
Having one knee bent does not prevent a character from breaking into a run. Having both knees bent does not prevent a healthy individual from quickly moving into a sprinter's position and then breaking into a run. Kneeling is the most advantageous starting position for a sprinter, so why rule that it is an impediment to movement? Being knocked on your back or belly, however, completely prevents any movement until something to right them back onto their feet occurs.
Kneeling is effectively a standing position, and needs no special status of it's own. Neither should it provide any bonuses, as prone does, or if it did one can assume all standing persons drop to a kneeling position to fire before correcting themselves. Realistically, kneeling is the most difficult position to fire from, while prone is the most comfortable and easiest. I personally find the kneeling position extremely uncomfortable to maintain, and in field use a different sight and sling are used for rifles that will be frequently fired from the kneeling position.
If, for some reason, you wanted to play out a character with bad knees (such as my father, who tore the cartilage in both knees over many years), I would give them a special rule that states they must take an additional move action to stand up if kneeling, seated or prone. This effectively makes it would take two actions to stand up from prone, and a single move action to get up from a kneeling or sitting position. That would be a disability, though, and I'd imagine modern medicine or magic could easily repair such a condition in the Starfinder universe.
|
So the question if in the title, do prone characters provide soft cover? This is important because either way this can be exploited.
The way I am ruling in games that I run:
Someone who is prone in front of you barely would qualify for partial cover +2 (less than half of you is covered). To for one second think that someone laying on the ground at your feet would provide you some added defense for someone making ranged attack against you is just too much nonsense for me to allow in my games. If someone brought this up at one of my games I would clearly interpret this as an attempt to exploit the rules. So a prone person in front of you gives you no cover at all, unless you can justify someone making a ranged attack against you is some how at a disadvantage because they are shooting at your ankles?By same token, if 3 characters are lined up between you and a ranged attacker, one prone, one kneeling and one standing- I would rule that the defensive bonuses you get are only applied to the one giving you the most cover, because a ranged attacker is not shooting at the part he can't see, he shoots at what he can see (again unless you can justify that he is dumb enough to shoot at the part of his target that clearly has the most cover.}
A kneeling character would fall under the rules for soft cover or low cover depending on the relative height of the kneeling character and your own character.
So the question if in the title, do prone characters provide soft cover? This is important because either way this can be exploited.The way I am ruling in games that I run:
Someone who is prone in front of you barely would qualify for partial cover +2 (less than half of you is covered). To for one second think that someone laying on the ground at your feet would provide you some added defense for someone making ranged attack against you is just too much nonsense for me to allow in my games. If someone brought this up at one of my games I would clearly interpret this as an attempt to exploit the rules. So a prone person in front of you gives you no cover at all, unless you can justify someone making a ranged attack against you is some how at a disadvantage because they are shooting at your ankles?By same token, if 3 characters are lined up between you and a ranged attacker, one prone, one kneeling and one standing- I would rule that the defensive bonuses you get are only applied to the one giving you the most cover, because a ranged attacker is not shooting at the part he can't see, he shoots at what he can see (again unless you can justify that he is dumb enough to shoot at the part of his target that clearly has the most cover.}
A kneeling character would fall under the rules for soft cover or low cover depending on the relative height of the kneeling character and your own character.
Look, I'm with you, but as it has been pointed out, there is no kneeling - only standing and prone. The rules clearly state that a creature provides cover. And the only rules are soft cover (+4) or partial cover (+2). That is not a rules exploit - that is all that is written on the matter.
In your home game, do what you want. But in SFS, what else do we have to go on?
I agree that sanity says something like the following points
1) Prone characters do not provide cover unless you are prone as well
2) Kneeling should exist as a separate in-between state. This would include sitting, or rice paddy prone as well (for those who don't know rice paddy prone is something like a very deep squatted position.)
3) A kneeling character should provide some sort of low obstacle's amount of cover
HOWEVER...
1) In the rulebook there is no kneeling, so kneeling must either be standing, or prone.
2) RAW the only conditions for soft cover are as follows
"Creatures, even enemies, between you and the source of an effect provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you +4 bonus to AC. However, soft cover provides no bonus to reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to attempt a Stealth check." (CRB pg 254)
So from what I can tell by RAW the rules support possibility 1 from my OP and therefore can be exploited as described. I'm not attributing sanity to any of this, as I don't think this is very reasonable, but it is what the rules currently state.
What is all this talk about kneeling? The word "kneel" doesn't even appear in the Core book according to my PDF search.
You're either prone, or you're not.
It doesn't specifically address the cover-related aspects, but kneeling is listed on the armor class modifiers table.
Edit: oops SF not SF. I predict that's gonna happen to me again, maybe once or twice.
Starfinder not pathfinder...
BUT... the pathfinder half bonus/penalty compared to prone I think is probably the best solution to implementing kneeling, I would also allow entering kneeling as a free and getting up as a swift. I don't know if I would allow getting up as a free with kip up or a similar feat or not.
As far as kneeling goes yes a GM can make a call, but it is a common enough situation to be in while engaged in ranged combat (IRL) that it should really be supported in the rules as a separate condition. It was in pathfinder, and kneeling would be way more common in a setting where guns are the norm.
And I think if you read through the thread you can see just how contention kneeling can be, a lot of people have different a strongly head opinions. That sort of thing leads to a lot of disgruntlement if it isn't addressed officially, and to be fair, there will be some even if it is.
...kneeling would be way more common in a setting where guns are the norm....
I am not sure where you are getting this idea. The kneeling position is extremely uncomfortable and unnatural. I pointed this out to you in a previous post.
And I think if you read through the thread you can see just how contention kneeling can be, a lot of people have different a strongly head opinions.
Digging one's own heels in and adamantly refusing to amend a view makes that person contentious, not the issue being discussed.
By your logic, we now must have conditions for every possible position a character could maintain, which would include standing, kneeling, squatting, lying, crawling, and crouching. We'd also have to document every possible sub-variation between them. Is the person in a full or partial crouch. Is the person lying prone or in the fetal position? Are they in a vertical kneel or a sitting kneel? Are they sitting on their knees, or in a chair, or on the ground with legs crossed, or uncrossed, or extended? Should we have a condition for someone standing with their arms folded, as well?
The line of reasoning you have followed falls apart quickly and turns combat into an encumbered mess of minutia. It is a step away from dynamic storytelling elements of a good game where a single round represents a large number of fluid movements.
As I have already explained, kneeling does not impede future movement in real scenarios. It is difficult to use as a shooting position and ought not provide bonuses. A wall or obstacle half your height is all that is required to gain a full AC bonus for cover, so it can be assumed a character behind such cover intuitively alternates between kneeling and standing dynamically from round to round. Prone is a condition, a status which can be inflicted and which is persistent until something is done to end it. Kneeling falls into the full range of motions a player may take, and is effectively the same as standing. For special cases, such as when a player kneeling over something is attacked without a chance to switch to a more advantageous position, the 'Flat-footed' condition would be more appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kneeling won't help. Halflings still provide cover, and thats about how tall you get
baggageboy wrote:
...kneeling would be way more common in a setting where guns are the norm....
I am not sure where you are getting this idea. The kneeling position is extremely uncomfortable and unnatural. I pointed this out to you in a previous post.
Kneeling is a standard rifle shooting position that has been taught and used for years. It makes perfect sense that it would be used in a setting where rifles are a norm. In a medieval/ fantasy setting, which is the general setting for pathfinder which included kneeling, what is there purpose of kneeling? I'm sure there is a reason to use a kneeling position, maybe with crossbows, I suppose you you shoot a regular bow kneeling, but I don't think either would be very common. But if kneeling was included in the pathfinder setting I don't see why it would not be in starfinder where I would expect it to be more common. That was my reasoning.
Digging one's own heels in and adamantly refusing to amend a view makes that person contentious, not the issue being discussed.If I am guilty of this you are just as much guilty of it as well. It's ok to have strongly held opinions that differ, when any subject hast strongly held opinions that are opposed the issue is in contention, hence contentious.
By your logic, we now must have conditions for every possible position a character could maintain, which would include standing, kneeling, squatting, lying, crawling, and crouching. We'd also have to document every possible sub-variation between them. Is the person in a full or partial crouch. Is the person lying prone or in the fetal position? Are they in a vertical kneel or a sitting kneel? Are they sitting on their knees, or in a chair, or on the ground with legs crossed, or uncrossed, or extended? Should we have a condition for someone standing with their arms folded, as well?
This is a slippery slope logical fallacy. I actually agree with you for the most part on this point. We do not need a ridiculous number of possible conditions, all with their own bonuses and penalties. Where I differ is I believe a single condition, call it kneeling, that spits the difference between being prone and standing is a useful addition. I would fully expect this "kneeling" condition to be used to mechanically describe several positions and I would expect GMs to arbitrate what is or is not kneeling. This is no different that what we currently have where a GM arbitrates that is standing or what is prone, it only adds an in between level which gives GMs a finer control over the bonus/penalty applied. In a home game a GM can do this on the fly, but if you were to play SFS there's only the two states we currently have for GMs and players to choose from. It also has some precedent in that pathfinder had such a state, though I understand starfinder is not pathfinder.
As I have already explained, kneeling does not impede future movement in real scenarios. It is difficult to use as a shooting position and ought not provide bonuses.
This is your own opinion and you are entitled to it. However I would like to point out that if you were to take a shooting class they will likely teach you kneeling as a shooting position ant tell you that it is an improvement over shooting off hand. However you cannot always get into a kneeling position due to time, low obstacles or other circumstances. The same goes for prone. there are benefits to a kneeling position as evidenced by it's continued use. You may not like it, that's ok not every position works for every person, as you said a man with bad knees would not wont to use kneeling, but you are not everyone.
As for being able to move from a kneeling position I think we both agree that it is easier to move from a kneeling position that from prone. Where we differ is that I think there is some difficulty moving from a kneeling position an you don't. I would ask you if you wanted to move quickly from a kneeling position and you hand were full, as they likely are in combat, do you really think that a runners start from a kneeling position accurately models the difficulty? There's definitely some grey area here as some character would be wielding nothing, or only a small arm. Others are carrying a very bulky artillery weapon. trying to model the differences in effort I think would be too much and we can look to the prone condition as an example; in the game it doesn't matter it takes a move to stand. I think a swift to stand from kneeling would be fine.
Whew, that was a long response. Anyways manshrip, I understand you disagree, that's ok I enjoy a good discussion. I do think that kneeling is worth discussing further as well. It is not only me that noted that kneeling seems to have been deleted from the rules, and feels that it really shouldn't have been. You seem to agree with the design of the game as it stands an that fine too, but that doesn't mean it isn't something worth talking about.
Digging one's own heels in and adamantly refusing to amend a view makes that person contentious, not the issue being discussed.If I am guilty of this you are just as much guilty of it as well. It's ok to have strongly held opinions that differ, when any subject hast strongly held opinions that are opposed the issue is in contention, hence contentious.
I was not critiquing you as a person, I was pointing out that blaming an argument for it's own intensity is a non sequitur.
I am familiar with shooting, in person, holding a rifle from the standing, kneeling, sitting and prone positions.
We are far off topic (soft cover from prone creatures), may I suggest creating a thread dedicated to the absence of the kneeling position in Starfinder as compared to Pathfinder?
That is probably a good idea.
So I added a thread to the general discussion forum to discuss kneeling and whether it should or shouldn't exist, we are free to trade banter on that particular point there :)