| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
OK, so in my nearly never ending list of Pathfinder -> Starfinder changes, we noted a change to the way cover works in Starfinder.
In Pathfinder:
Melee cover is determined by drawing lines from EVERY corner of the attacker square to EVERY corner of the target square.
Ranged cover is determined by drawing lines from ONE corner of the attacker square to EVERY corner of the target square. (this allows a person to shoot around a hard corner and not provoke from an opponent on the other side of the corner)
In Starfinder:
The cover section doesn't specify melee vs ranged, it simple states to draw from ONE corner of the attacker square to EVERY corner of the target square. Which means the concept of hiding around the corner and shooting a target wouldn't prevent them from taking the AOO as the melee target was still threatening you without cover.
That seems straight forward enough as written, I don't think the change was needed, but that's the only thing I found on the matter.
HOWEVER, in the example diagram directly below the cover rules... they contradict themselves with verbage and explanation that don't make sense with what's written above. They refer to drawing lines from EVERY corner of the attacker to EVERY corner of the target and thus preventing the melee creature from taking an AOO because of the corner... essentially referencing the rule the way ti worked in Pathfinder, but the text in the Starfinder book doesn't make any reference to this at all.
So which is correct? Is the example callout just flat out wrong and this was an intentional change so that hard corners no longer protect you from AOOs, or is this another editing error and the section on cover that separates melee from ranged just ended up on the editing room floor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the Pathfinder rules are needlessly complicated on the matter.
Starfinder sought to simplify things.
but that doesn't explain why the diagram is explained incorrectly. It implies a rule that doesn't exist.
I see now, I believe it was an editing error and they reused the basic construction of the diagram from Pathfinder and didn't catch their mistake.
Gah! I thought I did put it in the rules section, my bad. I'll repost in the rule section now. Thanks!
Gah! I thought I did put it in the rules section, my bad. I'll repost in the rule section now. Thanks!
No need, you can flag it for "wrong forum" and the mods will move it for you. :)
Hi!
There's a thread discussing problems with the diagram over here. The general opinion seems to be that the diagram is in error. If that's the case then I hope they'll be able to fix it in time for the second printing. :)
I also assumed the diagram was in error, and seemed to be a pure holdover from Pathfinder that was missed in editing. It's sad because that means this is yet another minor change that I need to keep track of between SF and PF games, and the one page "cheat sheet" of differences is becoming woefully inadequate as a go-to helper.
As long as you ignore the cover diagram, I actually quite like the new cover rules - they're much easier to remember (same rules for melee, reach and ranged weapons) and they're quicker to apply in play since you only have to measure from one corner instead of all four! :)
well, I just barfed all over the forums apparently, but as Kudaku pointed out the issue has already been addressed and flagged in another thread, so at this point we're just playing the waiting game anyhow.
|
I’m not sure the diagram is wrong. I think the description for case #2 is just saying that all corner-line combos have a line passing through a border that blocks line of effect.
It would seem that running alongside a border is the same as running through it, according to the diagram. This is weird because that means two combatants in a 5’ corridor always have cover to each other.
I hope that this is changed.