| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but if walls are obstacles, RD and BNW will be bound by law to let flame pistols shoot through adamantium mountains.
Not quite, as mentioned earilier in this thread:
I'd like to point out a little tidbit of data on page 409:
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects. Most low-level melee weapons have little effect on metal walls and doors. Certain pieces of equipment are designed to cut through metal, however.This means that you as GM can simply rule that the <insert elemental line weapon> is an ineffective weapon against an iron door and thus doesn't affect it at all, which stops the line.
I'd like to throw my two cents into this spinning hamster wheel.
I think the real issue is that some of these weapons would easily punch through walls or even starship hulls (adamantium round railguns). Some of them would not (flame pistols).
However, with the high level items, and weapon spec, and deadly aim. It is possible to get a flamethrower/icegun/etc. to a high enough damage that it can easily punch through even the hardness of an adamantium wall.
If that's the case the GM needs to refer to the above pg. 409 of the core rulebook.
I also don't understand how you would run walls in a game as if they were not objects. If you cut a 10'x10' section of steel out of a steel wall it's now a large object with the same stats as the 10' section of steel wall. How does it being part of a wall change the effects of weapons and spells?
Anything you target behind a wall would typically have total cover and concealment. However, if your effect can penetrate that 10'x10' object, that total cover is downgraded to improved cover for that effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IF you completely ignore that the scaling hardness of the material due to the thickness of the mountain would completely negate the possibility of it penetrating except in cases that dont even exist in game then yes they would.If they had the range and could beat the hardness, yes, we would.No, but if walls are obstacles, RD and BNW will be bound by law to let flame pistols shoot through adamantium mountains.walls are obstacles...it is in fact their intended purpose and only functions in some cases.
....the twisted logic of this argument is getting to me
Hardness never scales by thickness. A 1" thick and 100' thick object have the same hardness if they are composed of the same material.
A small diamond scratches just as easily as a large diamond.
IF you completely ignore that the scaling hardness of the material due to the thickness of the mountain would completely negate the possibility of it penetrating except in cases that dont even exist in game then yes they would.If they had the range and could beat the hardness, yes, we would.No, but if walls are obstacles, RD and BNW will be bound by law to let flame pistols shoot through adamantium mountains.walls are obstacles...it is in fact their intended purpose and only functions in some cases.
....the twisted logic of this argument is getting to me
Hardness never scales by thickness. A 1" thick and 100' thick object have the same hardness if they are composed of the same material.
A small diamond scratches just as easily as a large diamond.
Ninja'd!
Xenocrat is right. An adamantine alloy wall has hardness 30, regardless of whether it's one inch thick, or a thousand feet thick.
It's only hit points that scale with thickness.
If they had the range and could beat the hardness, yes, we would.No, but if walls are obstacles, RD and BNW will be bound by law to let flame pistols shoot through adamantium mountains.walls are obstacles...it is in fact their intended purpose and only functions in some cases.
....the twisted logic of this argument is getting to me
This is an interesting dichotomy:
Some think you need to read the rule in a way that will avoid very silly and improbable results and are willing to accept frequent pretty silly results, so at least the power is always ruled exactly the same.
Others think you can read the rule such that it works most of the time and occasionally have to make a judgement call to avert a nonsense result.
And phrasing it this way has me rethinking my complaints about the cover rules...
Okay people, 1st we need to stop the arguments about flame pistols shooting threw this and that... YOUR GM CAN ALWAYS RULE IT IS A INEFFECTIVE DAMAGE TYPE AGAINST A OBJECT ...so no, the flame line weapon doesn't shoot threw a mountain of anything except maybe wood ...and any realism problem with line weapons and what they damage is handled that way.....
2nd In the special attack rules of line weapon it mentions nothing about a cover bonus being provided against the line weapon attack by either obstacles or creatures struck earlier in the line, AND since, if they did, this would occur every time the weapon hits more than one thing it is very likely would have been called out(it has its own test vs cover...either its stopped by it or it exceeds hardness and it is not..no other weapon NEEDS to penetrate cover, you normally just take a penalty to hit)
3rd ...also mentions nothing about a concealment bonus vs the attack.....and think about it, this weapon is capable of hitting 4 tiny creatures all in same square for several squares in a row if need be ...its as much a area effect as a normal attack and concealment doesn't work vs area attacks....
4th ...it is a unique ability ...being neither normal attack or area effect ...so really the only rules you can say for sure apply to it are the ones under the line weapon description and it says nothing about cover or concealment penalty
5th... first line of line weapons "This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles." the intent here is clear and in general if you can shoot right threw something, its not cover ..its at best concealment
6th second line... "When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment. Roll damage only once. The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll." ...you make only one attack and test it against the ac of everyone in the line.....your attack roll is more a indicator of how well you placed the line effect than anything else.... your not really targeting any one person or trying to line them all up perfectly before you take the shot ...you attacked a 5 by 100 path and they happened to be in it... and again concealment doesn't work vs aoe.
7th ..a ww2 30 caliber machine gun retains lethal velocity threw a 2ft thick granite block wall...modern bunker busters sink a mile deep before exploding...100 ft penetration for a futuristic tracked magnetic acceleration rifle(rail cannon)is not that ridiculous (other than projectile should fly miles longer ...lol... what is it accelerating, bricks?....wait for the visual ;)
8th please faq
In the special attack rules of line weapon it mentions nothing about a cover bonus being provided against the line weapon attack
Nothing in the rules for a semi auto pistol says that its subject to cover, therefore semi auto pistols are a special exception exception to the cover rules.
The rules and logic don't work this way. It does not have to. The rule is that objects provide a cover bonus. The rule is there unless its removed by a more specific example, which neither line weapons nor lines in general have.
rd ...also mentions nothing about a concealment bonus vs the attack...
Again, neither the rules nor logic work this way. If it doesn't mention an exception to the rules then all of the rules are still in effect.
your not really targeting any one person or trying to line them all up perfectly before you take the shot
Then you need to make an attack roll at all because....?
-it doesn't say it doesn't so it doesn't- does not follow at all and does not make an argument. You can use that logic almost anywhere to get any result you want.
also don't understand how you would run walls in a game as if they were not objects.
I don't think anyone is doing this.
Its not about whether they're objects but whether or not they're objects that block line of effect.
Line
A line-shaped effect extends away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped effect applies to all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
If you have a line of effect to some of a target’s space but not all of it, the target has cover. Additionally, an otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it may grant cover rather than total cover against an effect, at the GM’s discretion.
At SOME point you pass from a table that provides cover to a wall that blocks line of effect. Once you pass that point you need to damage the table/repurposed wall to the point that it no longer does so to do anything to the person on the other side of it.
Some think you need to read the rule in a way that will avoid very silly and improbable results and are willing to accept frequent pretty silly results,
Please name any silly result I'm getting. At all.
semi auto pistol doesn't have a special descriptor that changes the way a normal attack works ....LINE WEAPONS DO ....it does not mention cover or concealment bonuses to ac or a miss chance, and is a semi-aoe effect and concealment does not apply to AOEs, and its test against the hardness of objects that would provide cover tells you how it interacts with cover....by either blasting threw them entirely or falling to penetrate its hardness .... a line weapon can be completely stopped from attacking someone behind partial cover if it fails to penetrate said cover ..not true of normal weapons ...IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT NEEDING TO BEING ABLE TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF A OBSTACLE TO PEIRCE IT (and why the hell would that matter to the wall)....and line weapon specifically states "...This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles. When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment"....nothing about it stopping prematurely if you do not have line of effect or line of sight ....this specific language over rules the description of line effects under spells ........also.. final point...... the wall itself definitely doesn't have total cover so if it gets damaged the shot continues threw with lethal force(for as much wall as there is if it continues to damage it) and then what? ....Magically disappears before it hits the guy on the other side ?
Okay, the run on sentence and random capitalization aren't helping.
It doesn't say anything about x does not mean that x is no longer relevant. That is a terrible argument. It is a non argument. The rules do not work that way.
Individual spells do not mention lines of effect because a line of effect is required for all spells unless they say otherwise. Same with your line weapon. If it does not specifically get rid of line of effect then line of effect is still a rule for it. The rule does not vanish because it's not mentioned. If you need that bit of rules lawerying for your interpretation to work, you're out of luck because that argument is terrible and breaks the game everywhere.
this specific language over rules the description of line effects under spells
It doesn't, because its not remotely specific to lines of effect. Its specific to lines ans how it shoots. It imposing additional restrictions on lines, not freeing them from constraints
Space wizard --> Bob ->Table -->Bill --> Red dragon--> Agent 21 --> agent 24
A normal line (say if space wizard tossed a lightning bolt) would hit all of them (though bill red dragon and agents 21 and 24 would probably have cover)
A line weapon hits all of them (instead of stopping in bobs shoulder, the way a normal attack would) Or stopping at the first hit, the way someone might read the line property without that clause.
A line weapon stops at the table if it can't penetrate its hardness, or stops at the red dragon if space wizard uses a flame thrower. A normal line would keep going under either of those circumstances
Thats all its saying. I think that example uses every rule from the line weapon without any kind of craziness. It fits the rules line for line, it makes line weapons do something without them being over powered
The bullets wouldn't magically vanish if they hit the table and don't penetrate hardness. If they can't get through the hardness the table is effective at stopping the line. You find that horribly unrealistic, i say its a staple of every action movie.
(space wizard knows what he did to get the whole bar mad at him.)
Line weapons do not say they ignore cover bonuses to AC, so logic would dictate that you follow the standard rules for cover and apply the bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bullets wouldn't magically vanish if they hit the table and don't penetrate hardness. If they can't get through the hardness the table is effective at stopping the line. You find that horribly unrealistic, i say its a staple of every action movie.
You see.. reading this shows you do understand what the other side of this argument is saying. It works exactly like this..
What makes no sense at all is the arbitrary difference your drawing between a overturned table, which by the way could be a wooden door, for all intents and purposes and a wall.
There literally isn't any. Both are obstacles / objects with hardness and hit points but for some magical reason you believe line weapons can magically pass through these barriers only if that barrier conceals less than 100% of the target otherwise the universe / gods come down and say nope not today line weapon! lol
Take it up with the designers, Vexies. They're the ones who put line of effect rules into the books even though, conceptually, many armaments should be able to easily shoot through multiple bodies, obstacles, or barriers.
Take it up with the designers, Vexies. They're the ones who put line of effect rules into the books even though, conceptually, many armaments should be able to easily shoot through multiple bodies, obstacles, or barriers.
Which is why its flagged for FAQ. This isnt settled fact it clearly could work one way or the other.
I maintain that the line affect quite clearly state its exception to this rule by being able to pass through obstacles and even follows up with rules to determine if it does. Normal weapons as you state do not because.. they are not line weapons and would indeed be stopped by the barrier damaging it as normal.
In fact the WHOLE reason you get a cover bonus is that your trying to NOT hit that doorway, overturned table, barrel or whatever. WHY? exactly why its been stated over and over again in this thread. Because under normal circumstances if you did hit that barrier / obstacle it would block line of affect and you would have to damage it instead of your intended target.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, let's take a look on how line of effect works
If a weapon, spell, ability, or item requires an attack roll and has a range measured in feet, it normally requires that you (or whoever or whatever is using the ability) have a line of effect to the target to be effective (subject to GM discretion). A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what an attack or ability can affect. A line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question (such as a wall, for most effects), but it is not blocked by purely visual restrictions (such as smoke or darkness). You cannot have line of effect that exceeds planetary range, unless otherwise indicated.
You must have a clear line of effect to any creature or object you wish to target or to any space in which you wish to create an effect without an area. For effects with an area, you must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of the effect. An effect that is a burst, cone, cylinder, or emanation affects only an area, creature, or object within line of effect from its origin (a spherical burst’s center point, a cone-shaped burst’s starting point, the center point of a cylinder’s circle, or an emanation’s point of origin). For definitions of these specific terms, see Area.
If you have a line of effect to some of a target’s space but not all of it, the target has cover. Additionally, an otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it may grant cover rather than total cover against an effect, at the GM’s discretion.
It seems like the section for lines of effect isn't nearly as strict as some of you are making it out to be, especially in the first paragraph. Notice how it's saying "normally" and "most effects." The game is very aware that exceptions can exist and that not all situations are treated the same. It also notes that walls block effects that it's able to stop, and a stone wall isn't stopping a rail cannon that's inflicting, for example, 25 damage. So yes, the airship mounted rail cannon probably isn't being stopped by the everyday, common concrete wall. If you don't like the idea of someone penetrating through 50ft. of solid steel, there's a nice little GM discretion mentioned there, too.
Notice how it's saying "normally" and "most effects."
Any effect can be said to not be most effects. For something as important as line of effect and cover they're called out. Here they are not.
It also notes that walls block effects that it's able to stop, and a stone wall isn't stopping a rail cannon that's inflicting,...
You're taking an imposition on the way that line weapons work and arguing that it's permissive for line weapons and thus lines in general. This doesn't work. That is one specific rule that is a modification of another rule. If it had meant to apply to everything it would be in the more general rules
beating an objects hardness by 1 hit point is not the same as going through that object. The rules aren't defined that way, thats the definition (yes, of something slightly arbitrary) you're using and it leads right to abject silliness. A 6th level character can't shoot an off the shelf crossbow through a mountain and kill someone on the other side because they can do 16 points of damage.
You see.. reading this shows you do understand what the other side of this argument is saying. It works exactly like this..
Okay, first, you accused me of ignoring rules. I asked you to back that up. You have.. nothing apparently.
Secondly yes I understand you. And? Do you think its impossible to have an understandable position thats wrong or something? I think its a requirement to tell someone they're wrong. You should try it. case in point...
What makes no sense at all is the arbitrary difference your drawing between a overturned table, which by the way could be a wooden door, for all intents and purposes and a wall.
There literally isn't any.
A table is cover. A wall is total cover. The rules for those are vastly different. Part of the reason you can shoot Ipseth crouching behind the table is because you can see his feet and Mohawk and shoot those. It also makes it easier to figure out where his head is and shoot that. Which are you doing? The rules don't care.
A wall is probably going to be thicker (and have more hit points)
A wall is probably going to be bigger (and have more hit points)
You cannot tell me that I'm wrong when you so very clearly have not been listening to what I'm saying.
I went into a lot of detail about the differences the game was modeling and to insultingly dismiss that as "magic" and "no reason at all" without even pretending to address or refute it is not discussing things in good faith.
I went into a lot of detail about the differences the game was modeling and to insultingly dismiss that as "magic" and "no reason at all" without even pretending to address or refute it is not discussing things in good faith.
I have backed up my position just as clearly with rules in multiple posts throughout this thread just as you have so I believe I have been more than respectful and provided evidence in "good faith" as you call it. I do not care to write it out each and every time.
If I took a whimsical tone that offended you or sound frustrated its because despite many people in this thread showing justification you still show a disregard for the possibility that you yourself could be wrong. We could be as well but I see either side of this as valid.
to illustrate why I find your interpretation silly and to use a extreme hyperbolic example as your flamethrower weapon example. let me put forth the following.
In your very own example a Trooper A shoots a line weapon a Target B who is standing partially behind a wall in a door way providing cover. Your own example shows that the wall he is partially behind is hit as well as he is (provided the roll beat AC+4) the wall takes some damage,and a portion of this wall could very well be destroyed if the damage was high enough, reduced by hardness and Target B takes damage. Target B sees this but he is smart! he takes a 5 foot step to the left and now is completely behind the wall (at least the part not destroyed). Unphased Trooper A guesses what square he is (he saw him move after all so has imprecise senses on his target) makes his guess squeezes his trigger but to his surprise the wall takes the shot and stops dead!
Im sorry I just dont see your justification making sense. It could very well be that, that is how its intended to function but I also see very clear rules that allow mine as well as others reading of these rules to function just as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know that BigNorseWolf ever claimed it made sense conceptually, just that, that's the way he read the rules.
I for one think it rather humorous that both camps have resorted to reductio ad absurdum styled arguments of opposite extremes in an attempt to better make their points.
If my options are that a wall stops a bullet ( something i see every day come hunting season) OR that a crossbow shoots through a mountain ( something i only see when i get the good stuff ) that choice is ridiculously easy.
Option A is less than perfect. Therefore option B MUST be the right one is not an argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my options are that a wall stops a bullet ( something i see every day come hunting season) OR that a crossbow shoots through a mountain ( something i only see when i get the good stuff ) that choice is ridiculously easy.
Option A is less than perfect. Therefore option B MUST be the right one is not an argument.
And under normal circumstances I agree with you 100%. However this argument isnt about normal circumstances or even normal weapons. These aren't normal bullets or even normal bullets for the unusual line weapons. This thread started asking questions about a specific and unusual weapon which has unique rules using specific and unusual ammo that also has unique rules that allow it to bypass hardness.
If this were not the case then we are in 100% agreement as to how the rules work.
The real question here can be boiled down to two issues.
1. do line weapons pierce through walls like they do other objects & obstacles.
2. if so then does the beam carry on to affect other targets and do line of affect rules come into play for targets beyond them. More specifically do they benefit from cover & concealment as mentioned in the line affect rules.
We have already established that. Walls are objects & obstacles, That Line weapons pierce obstacles and objects. We have established that any intervening object between the target and the weapon that does not provide 100% concealment are hit, damaged and passed through / by out to the range of the line weapon. Hopefully we get some designer insight as to how its truly intended to function.
If this were not the case then we are in 100% agreement as to how the rules work.
We're not. Because we're hung up on where to nest the goes through barriers rule in the specific/general hierarchy. It just gets a lot more nuts when you use that kind of ammo. Edit: you also don't seem to grock how hardness works. Its only based on the type of material. Its size and thickness don't matter. So if you use the "the line is blocked by this unless that happens" rule generally for cover you get some really wonky results: like shooting a crossbow with a sight 5 range increments through mt rushmore and impaling Ranger Smith because it can do 16 damage (We always knew booboo was going to snap someday)
Ignoring cover and concealment would be a HUGE mechanical benefit for a weapon, something that would be called out directly , not drop out of an f(g(x(f) ) ) problem
Backing your position is not refuting mine. The only refutation you've done is to accuse me of ignoring rules (still without an example) , and to denigrate it by calling it silly and then... show that said silliness is exactly how the game does everything else.
General rule1: You need line of effect to shoot someone
General rule2: You shoot one guy (your bullet doesn't go through bob and hit Jim)
Line rule: Lines work on everything from point A to point B
Line rule 1: As an exception to general rule 2 line weapons will shoot Bob and then hit Jim anyway.
Weapon line rule 1: Unlike other lines weapons stop at cover or creatures
Exception to weapon line rule 1: Weapons will not stop at cover if they can get through said covers hardness or creatures DR/Resistance
There is NO reason that a rule applying to general line of effect rules
and lines would be stuck in with the line weapon. There is EVERY reason for it to be in a line weapon right next to the other exception for line weapons.
There is no silliness what so ever in this approach. There is less than perfect modeling of shooting people through walls with certain specialized ammo in a certain gun but thats pretty much what happens when you make something weird and try to run it through the general rules.
To call that silliness and equate it with a crossbow bolt shooting through a mountain is not genuine. It is binary thinking. It is arguing that x and y are both unrealistic then equating them without regards that X is a little off and Y is something bugs bunny wouldn't try to pull off.
It is such bad binary thinking that I cannot see it as anything other than a deliberate attempt to shoe horn in a mechanical advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're not. Because we're hung up on where to nest the goes through barriers rule in the specific/general hierarchy. It just gets a lot more nuts when you use that kind of ammo.
I guess you missed the part where Im referring to every other weapon other than line weapons. Other weapons (not specifically line weapons) dont have the line property and so function like all other firearms even with adamatine ammo. They just end up really, really good at damaging objects, obstacles and so on.
For the zillionth time why I believe line weapons are an exception. (which line of affect allow for by using the language of most and not ALL but that was pointed out to you already) is the rules for line weapons themselves.
Line: This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles. When attacking with such a weapon, make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment. Roll damage only once. The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll. However, if an attack fails to damage a creature or obstacle hit in the line (typically due to damage reduction or hardness), the path is stopped and the attack doesn’t damage creatures farther away. A line weapon can’t damage targets beyond its listed range. If you score a critical hit, that effect applies only to the first target hit in the line, and you roll the critical damage separately. If multiple creatures are equally close, you choose which one takes the effects of the critical hit. A line weapon doesn’t benefit from feats or abilities that increase the damage of a single attack (such as the operative’s trick attack).
Specific beats general and this is pretty specific to me and others. Yes I know you believe it to be "descriptive language" No I don't agree with you as what is said beyond this backs up our interpretation and gives exactly under what circumstances the shot is stopped.
I get that you believe you are right and that you don't accept that any other interpretation can be.
I don't agree but I do accept the possibility that you could be right and it could very well function the way you believe.
1000ft barriers, crossbows and flamethrowers aside its a simple matter of what is written and what is written could use some clarification.
|
I'm pretty sure the guy behind the wall benefits from 50% miss chance from total concealment and +8 to AC from improved cover.
Total cover doesn't count in my opinion because you're not aiming at that enemy, he just happens to be in the line of fire (unless you have a spotter reporting which part of the wall to fire at, but in that case we're getting into strange shenanigans anyway).
As a GM I would rule that a rail cannon with adamantine rounds will punch straight through metal/concrete walls and has a chance to hit enemies behind it.
However, an elemental weapon will be stopped by that same wall because I as GM will be ruling that it's an ineffective weapon (as suggested by page 409 in the CRB) against metal/concrete.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please name any silly result I'm getting. At all.
Some think you need to read the rule in a way that will avoid very silly and improbable results and are willing to accept frequent pretty silly results,
Weapons that can expressly shoot through obstacles can't shoot through walls, because they can't see the other side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Line weapons do not say they ignore cover bonuses to AC, so logic would dictate that you follow the standard rules for cover and apply the bonuses.
The cover rules also address targeted attacks, which line weapons are not. They don't even say "make an attack against each target." They say "make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment."
Weapons that can expressly shoot through obstacles can't shoot through walls, because they can't see the other side.Please name any silly result I'm getting. At all.
Some think you need to read the rule in a way that will avoid very silly and improbable results and are willing to accept frequent pretty silly results,
No. You can see the other side of a fog cloud. You can shoot someone on the other side of the fog cloud.
You do not have line of EFFECT. Getting a point over somethings hardness does not mean that the one bullet you shoot whizzes right through it. The wall is still there and the wall still blocks bullets.
Would concealment be a better mechanism for an adamantine rail gun shooting up a rice paper walled house? Probably. But thats the (reasonable) DM fiat, not you can shoot through 100 feet or rock no problem.
Line weapons do not say they ignore cover bonuses to AC, so logic would dictate that you follow the standard rules for cover and apply the bonuses.The cover rules also address targeted attacks, which line weapons are not. They don't even say "make an attack against each target." They say "make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment."
. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover. Cover grants you a +4 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to Reflex saves against attacks that originate from a point on the other side of the cover from you.
Cover explicitly raises their armor class, so you have to shoot them at the increased value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is doing this.
Its not about whether they're objects but whether or not they're objects that block line of effect.
Line
A line-shaped effect extends away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped effect applies to all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
If you have a line of effect to some of a target’s space but not all of it, the target has cover. Additionally, an otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it may grant cover rather than total cover against an effect, at the GM’s discretion.
At SOME point you pass from a table that provides cover to a wall that blocks line of effect. Once you pass that point you need to damage the table/repurposed wall to the point that it no longer does so to do anything to the person on the other side of it.
Ah, I see your point. I don't agree with it though.
My interpretation is as follows.
Typically a wall stops line of effect, therefore giving a creature behind the wall total cover, preventing it from being targeted in the first place.
A line area effect such as arcing surge (starfinder's lighting bolt), is typically stopped by a wall, unless it completely destroys the wall. If it destroys the wall by depleting the 10x10 section's hit points it carries through. Because:
A line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question (such as a wall, for most effects)
The line weapon however, is a specific form of line shaped area of effect, though it is very similar, it has one important difference. This is specific to line weapons, and not typical of line area of effects:
The weapon hits all targets with an AC equal to or lower than the attack roll. However, if an attack fails to damage a creature or obstacle hit in the line (typically due to damage reduction or hardness), the path is stopped and the attack doesn't damage creatures further away.
A wall typically stops line of effect and therefore provides total cover. My reading of those two paragraphs tells me that walls and other objects with less hardness than a line weapon does damage do not stop line of effect. Since the wall does not stop line of effect, the target behind the wall does not gain total cover and can be targeted normally (improved cover, total concealment, PC/NPC is firing at random squares) This is an atypical situation for a wall, because it cannot stop a line weapon from passing through, assuming it can deal damage to the wall.
Walls don't automatically grant total cover. You must first determine if the effect can pass through the wall. If the line weapon beats/bypasses the wall's hardness, the wall does not provide total cover. If it does not, the wall provides total cover.
. My reading of those two paragraphs tells me that walls and other objects with less hardness than a line weapon does damage do not stop line of effect.
That line is only talking about the rules for line weapons that say lines stop when they hit something. Reading that it goes through anything else it damages is affirming the consequent which is sometimes how rules are written but that interpretation gets really weird really fast. It makes far more sense that its only permissive with regards to the extra imposition on a line weapon of stopping when it hits something it doesn't damage.
If the line weapon is supposed to be more penetrating than a line spell, why does a flame thrower stop at a red dragon when a line of flame would pass right through and burn everyone on the other side?
A line area effect such as arcing surge (starfinder's lighting bolt), is typically stopped by a wall, unless it completely destroys the wall. If it destroys the wall by depleting the 10x10 section's hit points it carries through.
I am iffy about destroying cover and breaking through it on the same round (the exact timing there is vague, does the line hit things in order or simultaneously?) But as long as you're going through the walls entire hit points I don't think it's wrong.
If the line weapon is supposed to be more penetrating than a line spell, why does a flame thrower stop at a red dragon when a line of flame would pass right through and burn everyone on the other side?
That's a good point, the reverse situation is also weird. A lvl 20 dude with enhanced resistance (kinetic) would stop a lvl 1 dude's adamantium railgun shot (DR20/- IIRC), but the 3" thick steel wall does not?
I really want that FAQ now.
It make perfect sense to me for railguns to shoot through walls, and that the more elemental effects do not, but they're using the same sets of rules and there are a lot of corner cases.
Line weapons do not say they ignore cover bonuses to AC, so logic would dictate that you follow the standard rules for cover and apply the bonuses.The cover rules also address targeted attacks, which line weapons are not. They don't even say "make an attack against each target." They say "make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment.". If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover. Cover grants you a +4 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to Reflex saves against attacks that originate from a point on the other side of the cover from you.
Cover explicitly raises their armor class, so you have to shoot them at the increased value.
You conveniently(and dishonestly) omitted the beginning of the paragraph.
You conveniently(and dishonestly) omitted the beginning of the paragraph.Line weapons do not say they ignore cover bonuses to AC, so logic would dictate that you follow the standard rules for cover and apply the bonuses.The cover rules also address targeted attacks, which line weapons are not. They don't even say "make an attack against each target." They say "make a single attack roll and compare it to the relevant Armor Class of all creatures and objects in a line extending to the weapon’s listed range increment.". If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover. Cover grants you a +4 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to Reflex saves against attacks that originate from a point on the other side of the cover from you.
Cover explicitly raises their armor class, so you have to shoot them at the increased value.
As I already provided all of the necessary information earlier in the thread, perhaps he didn't feel it was necessary? I find it's better to be succinct and to the point when discussing rules. Too much extraneous information can potentially lead to confusion and/or people making connections that aren't really there.
If it makes you feel better though, I'll repost it, in full:
Cover does not necessarily block precise senses, but it does make it more difficult for enemies to hit you. To determine whether your target has cover from your attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover. Cover grants you a +4 bonus to AC and a +2 bonus to Reflex saves against attacks that originate from a point on the other side of the cover from you. Note that spread effects can extend around corners and negate these bonuses.
I'm not seeing anything important that was omitted, that would alter the point he was making, or otherwise show him to be dishonest. If I'm mistaken in that, feel free to enlighten me.
BigNorseWolf The wall stopping the bullet is not a option by Raw(unless the fail to beat hardness) ...you definitely see the wall giving you a chance to penetrate it(you have line of sight & line of effect to the wall).
What your talking about is the bullet magically stopping after it gets threw wall for some unknown reason. The total cover it just shot threw i guess, even though we know the shot continues on in full force, capable of doing full damage
a cover bonus is a bonus to you ac provided by the fact that they have to shoot around the cover to hit you ...it is logically meaningless if your opponent can shoot threw cover and the special rules of line weapon tell you it does just that. Creatures and obstacles are what provide cover in this game....line weapon "This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles."
ALSO understand if the line descriptions under effects,WHICH SPECIFICALLY IS A AOE EFFECT, applies to line weapons than they are definitely also a AOE, and you don't get concealment vs a AOE ....A line weapon can hit 4 tiny creatures in a square, every square, for its full range if need be. You didn't line them all up before you took the shot, you shot the AREA they were all in .... also AOE's can require attack rolls in starfinder....see grenade
ALSO with area effects you only need line of sight and line of effect to the originating point of your effect ...in this case you(unless it's a flexible line)
What your talking about is the bullet magically stopping after it gets threw wall for some unknown reason.
At this point in the conversation you either haven't read anything I've written or you're insulting my position because you have nothing of substance to refute it with . Dismissing the idea of a mountain stopping a bullet as "magic" despite the obvious physical reality of the situation as well as the repeatedly laid out rules justification for it shows a level of determination to read the rules to your own mechanical advantage that precludes any rational discourse.
Mulling over whether Bob should provide cover when the table provides cover and nope. Bob is soft cover, soft cover doesn't provide cover for AoEs. (Sorry Bob the six pack abs aren't THAT good)
Although that sounds like a really cool feat....
I'm sorry i didn't realize you were a expert in the maximum velocities of futuristic rail guns in this made up world. So does a rail cannon round travel at mach 3 or mach 33... oh wait...YOU DON'T KNOW ....As i said before a WW2 30 caliber can shoot threw a 2 ft granite wall and a modern bunker buster travels a mile deep before it explodes. It is Physically possible it just takes enough speed ....also in real life a dirt mound is a better bullet stop than solid stone one so lets not bring real physics into this
Mulling over whether Bob should provide cover when the table provides cover and nope. Bob is soft cover, soft cover doesn't provide cover for AoEs. (Sorry Bob the six pack abs aren't THAT good)
Although that sounds like a really cool feat....
But does a colossal creature provide actual cover? Possibly up to total cover if you can't shoot under it's body?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry i didn't realize you were a expert in the maximum velocities of futuristic rail guns in this made up world. So does a rail cannon round travel at mach 3 or mach 33... oh wait...YOU DON'T KNOW ....As i said before a WW2 30 caliber can shoot threw a 2 ft granite wall and a modern bunker buster travels a mile deep before it explodes. It is Physically possible it just takes enough speed ....also in real life a dirt mound is a better bullet stop than solid stone one so lets not bring real physics into this
It's readily apparent why no one wants to debate you anymore. Your posts continually come off as dismissive, snide, and stubborn. Right or wrong, you refuse to even consider any other possible rules interpretation that is not your own. Continuing a discourse with someone with an attitude like that is simply a waste of time and energy. So I too will be bowing out until such a time as the devs can make a ruling.
I bid you good day, and encourage others to hit that FAQ button on my post on the 2nd page.
What happens if the target is small enough, compared to the flipped table, that it would reasonably grant total cover?
Let me start off by saying that I am assuming the meaning behind this is what happens when a target is small enough for a over turned table (previously in a example shown to be able to be penetrated by the line weapon) to provide total cover.
If that is the case I believe it brings up the problem of the it doesn't penetrate interpretation of the rules. If not then my apologies but it is a good example of the completely arbitrary nature of this type of ruling.
Let me illustrate, Target A is a medium sized humanoid standing behind a table, Target b is a small or tiny target behind him but also behind the table. With the it doesn't penetrate interpretation the same shot that hits target A behind the table would also simultaneously be stopped by the same table it was able to penetrate simply because target B is standing behind him. Or does it stop after it hits Target A because the shot that penetrated the table and target A decides it cant penetrate target A now because reasons? what if a Medium target is also standing behind Target B as well does it skip over the head of target B?
Yes this is hyperbolic, yes its over the top and yes it makes no sense but saying it only penetrates sometimes but sometimes the same object penetrated before now stops the shot because shortness also makes no sense what so ever.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Vexies. Beyond that, the mountain argument appears to be a strawman. I'm not sure why it keeps getting brought up. Lets take a more realistic example. The mentioned table.
Flip a table on its side, drop prone behind it. If you fire a gun you do not have line of effect to the prone person behind the table. Under the theory that line weapons can't target things they don't have line of effect to this would mean that as soon as you get to the table the line weapon stops, despite specifically saying it can go through objects if it damages them. This is true even if you go through its hardness and even if you do enough damage to completely destroy the table.
If the counterargument is, well, I'd let it work through the flipped table but not the mountain because of some sort of appeal to verisimilitude, I just don't buy it, why are we trying to apply real world 20th century verisimilitude to a futuristic game with futuristic weapons that the book specifically tells us usually have at least a bit of magic in them.
"The mountain has too many hit points to penetrate" isn't a counterargument to the line of effect portion of this debate.
But does a colossal creature provide actual cover? Possibly up to total cover if you can't shoot under it's body?Mulling over whether Bob should provide cover when the table provides cover and nope. Bob is soft cover, soft cover doesn't provide cover for AoEs. (Sorry Bob the six pack abs aren't THAT good)
Although that sounds like a really cool feat....
raw no. The rules assume a brontosaurus, not a gelatinus cube
I agree with Vexies. Beyond that, the mountain argument appears to be a strawman.
It is not.
In order to block line of effect an object has to be a barrier to that effect.
The argument being made here is that the definition of a barrier is something that does not have its hardness surpassed (rather than its hit points) Which would mean that anything that can do 16 hit points of damage isn't blocked by rock no matter how thick.(because hardness doesn't increase with thickness)
In terms of both raw and realisim, you would have better luck shooting through something by resolving it in order from the line weapon on out (I don't know if it works this way but i don't know that it doesn't)
Your line shoots the table. Damages the table. And if there's any table left (hit points) it still provides cover when you get to bob.
The mentioned table.
Flip a table on its side, drop prone behind it.If you fire a gun you do not have line of effect to the prone person behind the table.
You do have line of effect to them. Raw you haven't decreased your hit box to increase your cover. You are still a 5 by 5 square occupying a spot behind the table and can be targeted as such.
Since you want to bring 3 d combat into this, it goes both ways, and they can start from the top of their cube and shoot at the back of yours.
Stylistically someone can start their shot higher and try to catch your feet and rump which are now further back in the box. If that sounds awkward there's a functional -8 to the shot, which is like shooting someone's eye. Thats IF you're shooting back at them over the top or around the sides of the table. If you're doing nothing but cower behind it you can add total defense for another effective -4.
why are we trying to apply real world 20th century verisimilitude to a futuristic game with futuristic weapons that the book specifically tells us usually have at least a bit of magic in them.
Because raw usually winds up there if you use all of it rationally
Because the game was written by 21st century humans for 21st century humans
Because the allegedly object raw can be read multiple ways and you need some mechanism for deciding the best way to read it
Because people can and will and are twisting the allegedly objective raw into knots for a mechanical advantage
Because doing otherwise is going to result in a lot fun for people at the tables when someone abuses the rules exploits of the adventures
Because the tone of the game is guardians of the galaxy, not call of duty.
Because realistically your next encounter is you waking up in the inn with a hover drone on the next bulding over spraying you with bullets through 15 walls of the hotel, or every dungeon has a mini gun at with cameras at the far end of a metal walled maze so the party has to run through the room 3 times to get to the gun taking fire all the way (oh right, dms can abuse these rules too)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your totally contradicting yourself here...
You have said previously that a overturned table provides cover, that the beam hits both the table and the person and keeps going.
I have countered with how is this different than a guy standing in a doorway. (there isnt) both the wall would be hit and the guy and both would take damage...
I then countered with ok.. so the guy steps behind the wall. To which your stated opinion is the wall now blocks the shot and takes the damage.
Now your trying to say that a barrier that completely covers a target, 100% concealment, no longer blocks line of affect like you claimed it did before.
I see no matter what kind of logic or supporting rules are used you will just simply change your argument to disagree.
If this is not the case then please explain the difference between a overturned table that is only blocking 50% of the target or a 100% when he is lying down and a wall that is blocking 50% of the target when he is standing behind it in a door way or 100% when he side steps behind it.. or for that matter a low stone wall that is only blocking 50% of a kneeling target who is using it for cover or 100% once he is laying behind it.
Also there is a good reason why we believe that a line weapon passes through a barrier when it beats its hardness. That belief stems from the fact that the rules for the line weapon.. say they do. It makes no mention what so ever of hit points at all because hit points are not a determining factor, despite you not agreeing. It lists exactly in black and white what qualifies the beam from continuing on to a second target. Did it damage the target? If so then carry on. it does not say if it does x damage, sufficient damage to destroy or otherwise. It simple asks does the beam damage the target? yes? the carry on.
|
|
You do have line of effect to them. Raw you haven't decreased your hit box to increase your cover. You are still a 5 by 5 square occupying a spot behind the table and can be targeted as such.
You are still a 5 by 5 square behind a mountain as well. I'm not really sure how that's responsive. If you want say the table is 6 feet tall when flipped on its side, same result?
As it is, the GM needs to use the ineffective weapons rule judiciously. A railgun can be rule ineffective vs. 90ft of stone almost as easily as a flame pistol can be ruled ineffective vs. 3 inches of steel.
I'd be perfectly fine with the line weapon entry being updated with 'the GM can rule line weapons ineffective against certain types of objects that would give total cover to non-line weapons. Ex. shooting through dozens of feet of solid material, Flame pistols and steel walls.'
That said, the railgun minigun maze, or the drone shooting through the hotel walls, assuming it's designed well to not immediately TPK, could be a fun encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As it is, the GM needs to use the ineffective weapons rule judiciously. A railgun can be rule ineffective vs. 90ft of stone almost as easily as a flame pistol can be ruled ineffective vs. 3 inches of steel.
I'd be perfectly fine with the line weapon entry being updated with 'the GM can rule line weapons ineffective against certain types of objects that would give total cover to non-line weapons. Ex. shooting through dozens of feet of solid material, Flame pistols and steel walls.'
That said, the railgun minigun maze, or the drone shooting through the hotel walls, assuming it's designed well to not immediately TPK, could be a fun encounter.
I agree but the situation is hardly as dire as some would like to paint it and there are plenty of ways to get around it rather than simply GM hand wave it away.
First your targets would be subject to 50% miss chance at the very least provided you have imprecise senses on them. In the drone flying above a inn example it would have to be a pretty high level line weapon as their ranges are fairly limited and it would have to also guess what square the PCs are in to shoot then also get a 50% miss chance. This is all assuming you ignore cover which would make them harder to hit ( something that needs clarified)
Also as others have pointed out I was in error when I mentioned the scaling hardness with thickness rules. It only scales HPs but if you look and compare the two charts its fairly easy to breakdown how much hardness is given per substances per 1" of thickness and most of these issues vanish as soon as you get more than a few inches thick. Granted that's a house rule but if im going to hand wave something away I much prefer to have a system in place that makes it make sense other than me saying it just doesnt work cause I said so though that is a completely valid thing to do as a GM as well.
As it is, the GM needs to use the ineffective weapons rule judiciously. A railgun can be rule ineffective vs. 90ft of stone almost as easily as a flame pistol can be ruled ineffective vs. 3 inches of steel.
I'd be perfectly fine with the line weapon entry being updated with 'the GM can rule line weapons ineffective against certain types of objects that would give total cover to non-line weapons. Ex. shooting through dozens of feet of solid material, Flame pistols and steel walls.'
The ineffective weapon rules are on a per substance basis. They really don't treat a 5 foot rock wall and a 30 foot rock wall any differently. Its pretty clear to see why, if you're mining through with a pick you have to damage 5 feet to damage 30.
OR you can just read the line rule the way I am. That the hardness thing is only applicable to its self imposed limit of stopping the line early. If you want lines to have a little more punch have them resolve their damage and attacks in order except all at once. No fiat needed no wonkiness introduced.