I'm not deciding that, that is what the line special weapon property specifically states
It does not say that. You can interpret it but it doesn't say that.
What it says is
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...
Which would reasonably mean that if an attack succeeds at damaging a creature or obstacle in the line the path is not stopped and the attack damages creatures further away...
But what it doesn't imply strongly enough is
... despite this specific rule
or
... despite all other considerations
The first one gets you a line weapon with a reasonable use. The second overpowers the heck out of it. That is more than enough reason to go with the first.
pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles yes. It goes through bob, the white dragon the red dragon and probably the table without stopping followed by a paragraph of how exactly it does so.
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 Yes. You can hit the table and the wall and bob and bobs cel phone on the ground. That doesn't mean you ignore it.
The same way that a wooden wall couldn't block line-of-effect for Detect Thoughts when it isn't thick enough
What you're telling me is that 20 feet of wood can't stop a flame thrower and 50 feet of stone can't stop a machine gun.
Thats what you get when you decide to apply the one point of hardness rule as specific trumping general for every rule rather than apply it as specific trumping general only for the rule right next to it that its supposed to trump or work with.
That decision is not objective and as soon as you realize that it's very easy.
The problem is there is no general rule to support 20 feet of wood stopping a flamethrower,
It blocks line of effect.
It has total coverIt is a barrier that can stop the fire.
Those are the general rules for blocking shooting things with a solid barrier in between you. That really shouldn't be in question.
You are arguing that a line weapon changes that. That is your interpretation of the rule, not the rule. The silliness of it lends a lot of credence to one interpretation over the other: that the bit about overcoming hardness only applies to the line weapons rule about stopping earlier than a line normally would. Not giving it cart blanche to punch through everything
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that I seem to be the only one who perfectly understands what BigNorseWolf is trying to say, while everyone else either misconstrues his meaning, or gets it, but is actively ignoring it in favor of their own interpretation?
All those years of being a rules lawyer I guess. I know not to read farther into a rule than is there.
Like BNW, I interpret the rules thusly: Line weapons do not interact with or alter the rules for line of effect anymore than non-line weapons do (if they did, it would explicitly state that). All they do is let you attack multiple targets when you otherwise would not be able to.
Why is it that I seem to be the only one who perfectly understands what BigNorseWolf is trying to say, while everyone else either misconstrues his meaning, or gets it, but is actively ignoring it in favor of their own interpretation?
All those years of being a rules lawyer I guess. I know not to read farther into a rule than is there.
Like BNW, I interpret the rules thusly: Line weapons do not interact with or alter the rules for line of effect anymore than non-line weapons do (if they did, it would explicitly state that). All they do is let you attack multiple targets when you otherwise would not be able to.
come to the light! Step away from the dark side of rules lawyering... :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or gets it, but is actively ignoring it in favor of their own interpretation?
Is this not allowed? Just because one person thinks a rule works a certain way doesn't mean that person is right. Especially when that person is not a member of the design team making an authoritative FAQ/errata and when that person has no greater rules insight than anyone else in the thread.
I'm not sure why ignoring one individual's interpretation in favor of my own (or someone else's) is a problem. I think that interpretation is not correct, not consistent with how I read the rules, and leads to absurd results if applied in certain situations unless you then make another logical leap which is not explicit in the rules (namely it may pass through if you completely destroy it. See previous discussion regarding a door being different than a table flipped over based on what is around but outside the area of effect).
Like BNW, I interpret the rules thusly: Line weapons do not interact with or alter the rules for line of effect anymore than non-line weapons do (if they did, it would explicitly state that). All they do is let you attack multiple targets when you otherwise would not be able to.
The line of effect rules allow for plenty of wiggle room as to whether or not you need to apply them. For one the line of effect rules have a specific caveat that when they apply is subject to GM discretion, "...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)."
and 2) they specifically say, "[a] line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question (such as a wall, for most effects)" which is open to wide interpretation since it specifically says it doesn't apply to all effects.
What is a solid barrier that can stop the effect in question for something that specifically says it can travel through objects provided that it breaches their hardness/DR? That's up to the GM.
Some people think that those objects don't stop line of effect once they're hardness is breached and some people think they do. More people than not seem to think penetrated objects don't stop lines of effect or that the line of effect rules don't apply at all, the latter of which they are free to do because of caveat one to the line of effect rules which make them GM discretion.
None of this makes either side right, there can be debates that don't have clear answers where different people rule differently.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*starts handing out pamphlets to people with page 409*
An adamantine bullet fired from the basic Rail Cannon does not get stopped by normal walls that easily. Hence the solid barrier that can stop the effect doesn't really apply.
That same normal wall would stop the flamethrower pretty much dead in it's tracks because it's not designed for going through that stuff, and the solid barrier that stops the effect happens.
I'm using the word normal here which to me represent the standard method of constructing outer walls for housing here in the Netherlands, which is 35-40 cm (roughly 1 to 1,5 ft.)
I'm really confused about people building houses with 50 ft walls, you lose way too much space that way. Hell, even the Chinese Wall doesn't go thicker than 30 ft.
Though, since that seems to be the standard method of building, let's use a weapon to counter that. I present the Ulrikka Duster Paragon Rail Cannon (I'm not even bothering with adamantine bullets here). With an average damage of 66 before character specialisation, this fine weapon will punch through walls of hardness 131 (granted, with only 1 hp to spare). Since we don't know the muzzle velocity, nor the dragcoefficient of the 50 ft stone wall it's probably fair to call in page 409 and say that even that weapon is ineffective. However if we put this weapon against a 2 ft stone wall, I'm not convinced that it's going to be stopped, and the line will continu because the line of effect didn't run into a solid barrier that can stop the effect.
A Line Weapon is a targeted aoe (areas with targets 268)
..a aoe only needs line of effect to it's originating point, other aoe's also need clear line from that point to the effected creatures. LINE IS LEFT OFF THAT LIST (line of effect 271)... Because it has special rules (see line weapon) and is either blocked entirely (even by creatures) or penetrates (even walls)
If you are shooting threw it AND NOT AROUND IT, it can only be providing no cover or soft cover.....soft cover does not provide any benefit vs a AOE (pg254 soft cover)
Concealment does not provide any benefit vs a aoe it only lists its effects vs ranged and melee (pg253 concealment)
lets say you are trying to shoot threw a wall ...you definitely see the wall and can damage and penetrate it by the rules of line weapon, there is no justification for the shot not continue on, even if you were to say you need line of effect, you have just achieved it
you do not need line of sight for a aoe
even normal line effects that would be blocked by a obstacle can continue on if they damage objects and do enough damage to destroy the barrier
I have played 11 different role playing games 2ed, 2ed skills & powers, 3rd ed , 3.5, pathfinder, starfinder, rifts, battletech, paranoia, vampire & shadowrun .....I have never encountered a 20ft thick wall of wood. Also never seen one in real life (but I've never been to see the Giant Sequoia) If your the dm you can rule that a flame thrower doesn't do effective damage to the wood (I would be inclined to let it go against a normal door or you players are going to get mad at you) you can also rule bullets don't damage walls but you players might laugh you out of the room ...but seriously at this point your arguing about the real life physics of weapons in a game where all energy weapons work in space (almost none of them should....lasers, plasma weapons, and a few others would work)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*starts handing out pamphlets to people with page 409*
An adamantine bullet fired from the basic Rail Cannon does not get stopped by normal walls that easily. Hence the solid barrier that can stop the effect doesn't really apply.
That same normal wall would stop the flamethrower pretty much dead in it's tracks because it's not designed for going through that stuff, and the solid barrier that stops the effect happens.I'm using the word normal here which to me represent the standard method of constructing outer walls for housing here in the Netherlands, which is 35-40 cm (roughly 1 to 1,5 ft.)
I'm really confused about people building houses with 50 ft walls, you lose way too much space that way. Hell, even the Chinese Wall doesn't go thicker than 30 ft.
Though, since that seems to be the standard method of building, let's use a weapon to counter that. I present the Ulrikka Duster Paragon Rail Cannon (I'm not even bothering with adamantine bullets here). With an average damage of 66 before character specialisation, this fine weapon will punch through walls of hardness 131 (granted, with only 1 hp to spare). Since we don't know the muzzle velocity, nor the dragcoefficient of the 50 ft stone wall it's probably fair to call in page 409 and say that even that weapon is ineffective. However if we put this weapon against a 2 ft stone wall, I'm not convinced that it's going to be stopped, and the line will continu because the line of effect didn't run into a solid barrier that can stop the effect.
You can use pg. 409, and you can use the line of effect rules. Both together allow the GM to rule how a line weapon works in a way that makes the most sense in each specific situation.
Shooting through a wooden wall? cool! Shooting through the great wall of china with a flamethrower? Nope, ineffective. Trying to shoot through 95ft of solid rock? Ineffective and/or 95ft of solid rock stops line of effect as it's too big of an object.
There's no reason to rule all line weapons ineffective against all walls, because the GM is given the tools to rule on a case by case basis, and eventually develop a guideline for when it does and doesn't work that their players can be familiar with.
Another corner case: metal stud and drywall construction. I'm pretty sure a wall made from that doesn't stop line of effect for regular weapons. Again though, entirely GM discretion.
As it should be. The GM needs to be able to decide when a line weapon stops making sense and rule it that way in each case. Just like the other rules subject to GM discretion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it that I seem to be the only one who perfectly understands what BigNorseWolf is trying to say...?
I assumed it was because you were a sock puppet.
You and BNW are using a weakly stated general rule, that a wall blocks line of effect for "most effects" and deciding that it overrules a specific rule that give a method to determine what can stop its effect.
or gets it, but is actively ignoring it in favor of their own interpretation?Is this not allowed?
I never said it wasn't, nor did I mean to imply it. I was simply making an observation. Please don't read into it more than that.
Why is it that I seem to be the only one who perfectly understands what BigNorseWolf is trying to say...?I assumed it was because you were a sock puppet.
You and BNW are using a weakly stated general rule, that a wall blocks line of effect for "most effects" and deciding that it overrules a specific rule that give a method to determine what can stop its effect.
That might be what BNW is doing, I'm merely making a prediction of the developer's intent. Since that coincides with his statements, yes, I'm supporting his interpretation (which is also mine).
You needn't call me names, HastyMantis.
However if we put this weapon against a 2 ft stone wall, I'm not convinced that it's going to be stopped, and the line will continue because the line of effect didn't run into a solid barrier that can stop the effect.
Well, its not like what I'm saying makes it unblockable. Just go through the walls HP instead of the hardness and you're good. That's as good of a guideline as I can think of for whether something can block the attack or not. (again, I don't think the caveat in line weapons changes this)
It gives the line weapon a lot of advantages
You can theoretically hit and damage your target in the same round (though they probably have cover and concealment) if you're shooting through drywall.
Your line weapon counts as effective at destroying the wall (your hunting rifle, probably not going to get you through a wall any time soon)
It treats walls of different thicknesses differently
And still keeps the line weapon from shooting through the entire starship.
Why is it that I seem to be the only one who perfectly understands what BigNorseWolf is trying to say...?I assumed it was because you were a sock puppet.
You and BNW are using a weakly stated general rule, that a wall blocks line of effect for "most effects" and deciding that it overrules a specific rule that give a method to determine what can stop its effect.
That might be what BNW is doing, I'm merely making a prediction of the developer's intent. Since that coincides with his statements, yes, I'm supporting his interpretation (which is also mine).
You needn't call me names, HastyMantis.
A) A "sock puppet" is a secondary account used to provide onesself support in an argument. I wasn't calling you names; I was calling you BNW (and tongue in cheek, at that).
B) Still a little salty about having our reasonable interpretation of the rules referred to as "Aristotelian chicanery," so civility complaints seem a bit thin.
|
|
However if we put this weapon against a 2 ft stone wall, I'm not convinced that it's going to be stopped, and the line will continue because the line of effect didn't run into a solid barrier that can stop the effect.Well, its not like what I'm saying makes it unblockable. Just go through the walls HP instead of the hardness and you're good. That's as good of a guideline as I can think of for whether something can block the attack or not. (again, I don't think the caveat in line weapons changes this)
It gives the line weapon a lot of advantages
You can theoretically hit and damage your target in the same round (though they probably have cover and concealment) if you're shooting through drywall.
Your line weapon counts as effective at destroying the wall (your hunting rifle, probably not going to get you through a wall any time soon)
It treats walls of different thicknesses differently
And still keeps the line weapon from shooting through the entire starship.
But why would you need to destroy the entire section of the wall to pass through instead of just piercing a small bit because that's what it sounds like you are saying you need to do.
Trying to make sense of what you are proposing:
There are no rules for tiny sections of a wall, only 10x10 foot sections.
I'm going to take the example of a concrete wall in the CRB which has 540 HP.
Am I correct in your understanding that I would need to deal 541 points of damage with my Ulrikka Duster Paragon Rail Cannon to penetrate through that 3 ft. wall?
Or would you say that since my bullets are a lot smaller, say 1 square inch for ease of calculations, that I would need to deal:
540 hp on 100 foot square, 5,4 hp on 1 ft square, 0.0375 hp on a 1 inch square.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just say I need to overcome the hardness (in this case 8 because of the Ulrikka Duster) in order for my bullet to pass through?
However if we put this weapon against a 2 ft stone wall, I'm not convinced that it's going to be stopped, and the line will continue because the line of effect didn't run into a solid barrier that can stop the effect.Well, its not like what I'm saying makes it unblockable. Just go through the walls HP instead of the hardness and you're good. That's as good of a guideline as I can think of for whether something can block the attack or not. (again, I don't think the caveat in line weapons changes this)
It gives the line weapon a lot of advantages
You can theoretically hit and damage your target in the same round (though they probably have cover and concealment) if you're shooting through drywall.
Your line weapon counts as effective at destroying the wall (your hunting rifle, probably not going to get you through a wall any time soon)
It treats walls of different thicknesses differently
And still keeps the line weapon from shooting through the entire starship.
But why would you need to destroy the entire section of the wall to pass through instead of just piercing a small bit because that's what it sounds like you are saying you need to do.
Trying to make sense of what you are proposing:
There are no rules for tiny sections of a wall, only 10x10 foot sections.
I'm going to take the example of a concrete wall in the CRB which has 540 HP.Am I correct in your understanding that I would need to deal 541 points of damage with my Ulrikka Duster Paragon Rail Cannon to penetrate through that 3 ft. wall?
Or would you say that since my bullets are a lot smaller, say 1 square inch for ease of calculations, that I would need to deal:
540 hp on 100 foot square, 5,4 hp on 1 ft square, 0.0375 hp on a 1 inch square.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just say I need to overcome the hardness (in this case 8 because of the Ulrikka Duster) in order for my bullet to pass through?
And this is were we inject rules when how the weapon operates is already clearly stated. Did it damage? yes? then it passes through. It does not say anywhere in its rules it must destroy a 10x10 section do x amount of damage or anything else because it simply isn't required to do so. if so.. it would have been stated. Trying to read into or interoperate anything more than what it says brings us to all these wonky places that are complicated and unnecessary.
It makes the basis of a fine GM house rule if you wanted to tone down these weapons or create a system that is more granular but its not what the rules say to do.
As to the why or how could we possibility disagree with the it doesn't work interpretation. Its quite simple really. The rules say what they say and the other way of looking at it seems very much to me to be completely arbitrary and requiring a whole lot of GM fiat to justify.
I very much look forward too and hope that this gets FAQ'd at some point. This weapon, though cool, has spurred far more discussion that its impact in game. Granted its been entertaining and frustrating at times for everyone involved im sure.
But why would you need to destroy the entire section of the wall to pass through instead of just piercing a small bit because that's what it sounds like you are saying you need to do.
I'd call it improved cover at 75% and cover at 50%, but a few reasons
Because bullets don't travel in straight lines one perfectly through the other. If you fire off a machine gun at a wall you don't just have one bullet make a hole for all the others to pass through, all the bullets need to make their own way.
Secondly firing one bullet through the wall still doesn't let you see where the guy is. That makes hitting him harder. If all your bullets are going through one hole and he's not there, you're out of luck
Lastly and most importantly 5 feet of rock blocks more bullets than 1 inch of rock. 5 feet of rock has more hit points but the same hardness.
Trying to make sense of what you are proposing:
There are no rules for tiny sections of a wall, only 10x10 foot sections.
I'm going to take the example of a concrete wall in the CRB which has 540 HP.Am I correct in your understanding that I would need to deal 541 points of damage with my Ulrikka Duster Paragon Rail Cannon to penetrate through that 3 ft. wall?
That doesn't seem unreasonable. (maybe 270 for a 5 by 5 section?) If you;ve ever drilled or jack hammered through rock you know thats going wickedly fast by comparison with something that was made to do that job.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just say I need to overcome the hardness (in this case 8 because of the Ulrikka Duster) in order for my bullet to pass through?
No. Because hardness is how much damage you need to do to even CHIP something. Chipping it isn't going through it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is now, that with that 541 point of damage, the 10x10 ft. wall stops being a 10x10 ft section of the wall. It's destroyed.
A 5x5 ft section would have 135 hitpoints, not 270 btw. a 10x10 ft consist of 4 5x5 ft sections. Still bullets don't have a 5x5 ft surface, they are way smaller. So can we agree on 1 ft? Which reduces the HP of a 1 ft section to 5.4, so let's round up to 6. With hardness 15 that comes out to needing 22 points of damage for a bullet to pass through if we use your reasoning without having to completely destroy the entire section.
I'm not destroying a piece of wall, I'm sending small bits of metal through it in the hopes of hitting something behind it.
Yes, bullets don't travel in a straight line after each other, not really sure why that is being brought up.
I'm talking about a single bullet simply going through a wall and retaining enough energy to still hurt something behind it. Kinda like this video or like this one
Now this is modern day weaponry, simple 9mm and 5.57mm and simple shotgun slugs. Why would a futuristic weapon with bullets made from materials that's designed to ignore a certain amount of hardness be incapable of doing the same?
Especially weapons that have specific ingame rules that allow them to actually do this, in other words, line weapons.
The point is now, that with that 541 point of damage, the 10x10 ft. wall stops being a 10x10 ft section of the wall. It's destroyed.
A 5x5 ft section would have 135 hitpoints, not 270 btw. a 10x10 ft consist of 4 5x5 ft sections. Still bullets don't have a 5x5 ft surface, they are way smaller. So can we agree on 1 ft? Which reduces the HP of a 1 ft section to 5.4, so let's round up to 6. With hardness 15 that comes out to needing 22 points of damage for a bullet to pass through if we use your reasoning without having to completely destroy the entire section.
I'm not destroying a piece of wall, I'm sending small bits of metal through it in the hopes of hitting something behind it.
Yes, bullets don't travel in a straight line after each other, not really sure why that is being brought up.
I'm talking about a single bullet simply going through a wall and retaining enough energy to still hurt something behind it. Kinda like this video or like this one
Now this is modern day weaponry, simple 9mm and 5.57mm and simple shotgun slugs. Why would a futuristic weapon with bullets made from materials that's designed to ignore a certain amount of hardness be incapable of doing the same?
Especially weapons that have specific in game rules that allow them to actually do this, in other words, line weapons.
Oh I 100% agree with the fact that bullets penetrate walls today and not even fancy armor piercing rounds. That is a whole other discussion but it does happen and through material just as tough as stone, bricks and steel. We are however bound by the rules of a game that often times are simplified down to make it a fast and fun experience.
This does illustrate perfect why its completely reasonable under normal circumstance to see that line weapons could penetrate most conventional walls with ease quite realistically. However we are left to debate the rules that exist. I believe line weapons and the mechanics spelled out in their description were meant to simulate advanced versions of this very principle in action.
Just to take a different approach to this question, how would people's rulings here in regards to line of effect be applied to the Solarian Black Hole revelation? It is an AoE power, which says it passes through solid objects. Contrast line weapon rules with Solarian Black Hole rules.
Does total cover through a wall prevent the use of Black Hole on targets on the other side because you don't have line of effect?
Just to take a different approach to this question, how would people's rulings here in regards to line of effect be applied to the Solarian Black Hole revelation? It is an AoE power, which says it passes through solid objects. Contrast line weapon rules with Solarian Black Hole rules.
Does total cover through a wall prevent the use of Black Hole on targets on the other side because you don't have line of effect?
No, the power works through solid obiects, even if those objects are also walls.
Thaago Concealment section only describes when ranged attacks and melee benefit from concealment ....there are no rules for applying concealment to a AOE ...you pulled you line of text from the section on how to apply Concealment miss chance ....read the first part
And The specific rules of line weapon override the general rules of cover ...it's that simple
"A Line Weapon is a targeted aoe (areas with targets 268)
..a aoe only needs line of effect to it's originating point, other aoe's also need clear line from that point to the effected creatures. LINE IS LEFT OFF THAT LIST (line of effect 271)... Because it has special rules (see line weapon) and is either blocked entirely (even by creatures) or penetrates (even walls) "
After rereading soft cover you do have a bit of a point there ..i was thinking about how it doesn't give reflex saves ...but it's the ac bonus that would apply .....still it is clear to me from the text of line weapon that it is it's intent to pierce anything it can beat the hardness of ...I also agree soft cover does not apply in this case ...and to try to make that point more accurately .....Cover Is a bonus for having to shoot around something to hit your target ...It does not apply if you shooting threw a paper wall ...that's concealment, something that does not apply to an AOE (at least their is no rules for how apply it to a targeted aoe ..only melee and ranged are listed) In the case of a rail gun firing adamantine bullets most walls are just as meaningless
"A Line Weapon is a targeted aoe (areas with targets 268)
That's debatable. A line weapon may not be a line effect at all. The line weapon's description could easily be using the English "line" rather than the area of effects rules for "Line."
If it were an area of effect Line, as you say, then firing a single bullet from a line weapon would not only damage the creature you'r targeting, but anything else it its square. That might make sense for a lightning gun or flamethrower, but less so for a projectile weapon hurling a single round. Just doesn't make sense that a bullet would hit Jimmy, and Jimmy's backpack laying at his feet, and the poster on the wall to his right, and the chandelier hanging down over his head.
In any case, I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation. Merely playing devil's advocate on this one.
Maybe the bullet hits Jimmy directly, and the sheer velocity of it's penetrating power causes a shockwave that damages everything near him. (Though if that's the case, one must wonder why Jimmy isn't instantly killed as all of organs get liquefied.)
Also, please don't put quotation makes around something that isn't a direct quote. It's highly misleading. If you're quoting rules, use quotation marks; if you're just making an assertion, don't.
Here's the full text:
Areas With Targets (Area rules)
Some effects have areas that target creatures or objects within the specified area. Unlike for targeted effects (see Target on page 272), you do not get to select which creatures are affected; the effect affects all creatures or objects of some kind in the specified area.If an effect restricts which targets are affected (for example, it affects only living creatures), then creatures in the effect’s area that are not of the appropriate type do not count against the number of creatures affected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork ...the quotation your referring to was me referencing something I said early that was under debate i didn't mean to imply i was quoting the book(and have been trying to give pg # when i do)....i will try to be more clear in the future...
As i mention once before there is a little realism problem with projectile line weapons and energy ones having the same rules ...and some rules fit one better than the other and some fit the other better....but they wrote it as one ability and that's what we have to deal with
But here's a question ..if a line isn't a targeted aoe ...what is ?
.....grenades and explosive weapons target a square ...most targeted spells are targeted effects and that works differently(no attack roll, pick your targets)....(haven't read every spell yet though, to be honest)
And if it's not an aoe you would be able to exclude allies ...and the more i think about it that's further proof you can't use concealment vs it, if you can't choose to exclude an ally, why would that ally having concealment help him? your already not really trying to hit them
Interesting points.
Thaago, Ravingdork Posted the area with targets text right above us ..so yes they do exist though the game text just describes them as "effects" that have "areas that target creatures or objects"...."targeted aoe" is my shorthand term ....it pretty obvious line weapon is one of these
i would say a ranged touch attack is likely to fall under the category of ranged attacks just as a melee touch attack would be a melee attack
and beside the actual rules of concealment which don't tell you how to apply concealment to a area effect there is a problem with concealment working vs a Line weapon I pointed out earlier ...
(And if it's not an aoe you would be able to exclude allies ...and the more i think about it that's further proof you can't use concealment vs it, if you can't choose to exclude an ally, why would that ally having concealment help him? your already not really trying to hit them)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the power works through solid obiects, even if those objects are also walls.Just to take a different approach to this question, how would people's rulings here in regards to line of effect be applied to the Solarian Black Hole revelation? It is an AoE power, which says it passes through solid objects. Contrast line weapon rules with Solarian Black Hole rules.
Does total cover through a wall prevent the use of Black Hole on targets on the other side because you don't have line of effect?
I just see Black Hole's "Solid objects do not block this ability" and Line Weapon's "This weapon fires a projectile in a straight line that pierces through multiple creatures or obstacles" as being very similar. "objects do not block" and "pierces through obstacles" mean the same thing in my mind.
Although the "pierces" phrase is further defined in the line weapon rules, which is where I can see people reading it differently.
So yeah, FAQ button is probably warranted, but if I were running it, I'd have that railgun shooting through walls which don't have sufficient hardness.
As far as physical reality I have no issue with an adamantine bullet moving at multiples of the speed of sound passing through 100 feet of what might as well be a mountain of soft butter (adamantine has always been a magic substance). Now, you might need to roll for damage every 5 or 10 feet though if its not auto-success (say with a flame line weapon). Typically that is how I've handled damage to dungeon walls and digging through them.
Edit: Nevermind, there's only one damage roll, so it either goes through all the way or not.
Keep in mind that with the "objects do not block line of effect if dealt damage interpretation", you cannot make the line stop early. It always tries to go to max range. Be very, very careful when firing line weapons in settlements, stations, starships, etc. You're likely to put a hole out to space or through someone's kitchen. Starship bulkheads have a hardness of 35, but a sufficiently high level weapon can get past that.
I feel like there is an appropriate speech in Mass Effect 2 that applies here. Something along the lines that Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest SOB in space.
On the concealment/cover issues, I'd assume total concealment generally applies (having line of effect doesn't provide line of sight) unless other special or remote senses are in play.
If you're ruling that the line can pass through objects and that those objects do not block line of effect, then any object it passes through can't provide cover. Cover is given by objects that partially block (or in the case of total cover, totally blocks) line of effect.
Or in other words, cover is granted because you can hit only a small section of the target, not the entire target. Its like a size modifier to to-hit. Shooting through objects means you can still hit the guy in the foot behind the low wall, and thus the entire target is valid. Things that go around cover, such as spread effects, or through cover, such as a piercing line effect, ignore said cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hiruma Kai ..Line weapon is a target aoe ....there are no rules for applying concealment vs a targeted aoe or any aoe, only melee and ranged attacks.(maybe line weapon is ALSO considered a ranged attack but it never says it is in the line weapon description referring to it as a "attack roll" and this would put many rules on how it would work in direct contradiction)
..you only need line of effect to the origination point for a line(special rules exist for "line weapons", and "line effects" can pass if they completely destroy the barrier, line of sight is not needed for a aoe
also couple logical problems with concealment vs a line ...
if it's not an aoe you would be able to exclude allies, if you can't choose to exclude an ally, why would that ally having concealment help him? your already not really trying to hit them
a line weapon can strike 4 tiny creatures in a square, every square, for it's entire range ...your not lining them all up to take a shot, your hitting almost the whole area regardless of whats in it and since where you placing the attack doesn't depend on where you think any one creature is (you place the attack and it hits what it hits) why would something concealing itself in the area your attacking help it ?
the way I'm looking at this now, everything fits neatly, which kinda makes me think I'm right
Hiruma Kai ..Line weapon is a target aoe ....there are no rules for applying concealment vs a targeted aoe or any aoe, only melee and ranged attacks.(maybe line weapon is ALSO considered a ranged attack but it never says it is in the line weapon description referring to it as a "attack roll" and this would put many rules on how it would work in direct contradiction)
..you only need line of effect to the origination point for a line(special rules exist for "line weapons", and "line effects" can pass if they completely destroy the barrier, line of sight is not needed for a aoe
That is the crux of the question. Is it a ranged attack or not. Is any time you roll an attack roll considered some form of melee or ranged attack? If its not a ranged attack roll, do you add your dexterity to the to-hit roll? Do add your strength? Neither? On pages 240 and 241 of the rulebook, I only see ranged and melee attacks listed.
About the only thing I see that makes it possible that concealment is not rolled is the wording of how it says roll an attack roll and compare it to all appropriate ACs. Its possible they intended that to replace all the usual attack process. Unfortunately, I don't think that reading is particularly clear. Its one of the reasons I hit the FAQ button.
Another way to look at it, is the AoE's effect is to apply an attack. Saving throws don't require concealment checks since they are not attacks, but in this case we have an attack roll generated as the effect.
Personally, I think its a ranged attack roll, you add your dexterity to hit, prone targets gain +4 AC, and concealment would apply. One of the reasons I think that way is because of blast weapons. They explicitly state they ignore concealment, while also clearly attacking in an AoE Cone. Why explicitly state it for blast weapons but not automatic or line weapons? Could be an editing mistake, but it seems intentional to me.
I also assume concealment applies to automatic weapons, since they roll attack rolls.
also couple logical problems with concealment vs a line ...
if it's not an aoe you would be able to exclude allies, if you can't choose to exclude an ally, why would that ally having concealment help him? your already not really trying to hit them
The opposite argument is why does your base attack bonus help you hit with a line weapon? BAB represents your experience in hitting things, but if you're just filling the area with bullets or fire, why does it matter how well you can aim? Why isn't it a saving throw in that case, representing how well they can get out of the way of the projectile, rather than rolling to see how well you can aim the projectile? For a true square filling AoE, the attacker shouldn't need to roll anything (except maybe to hit a square), because your ability to aim doesn't matter when it fills the entire volume.
There's certainly enough situations in the rules where its a bit silly logically in order to streamline play. But as far as I understand it, if there's an attack roll, concealment applies unless otherwise stated (such as for Blast weapons or for Seeking shot).
a line weapon can strike 4 tiny creatures in a square, every square, for it's entire range ...your not lining them all up to take a shot, your hitting almost the whole area regardless of whats in it and since where you placing the attack doesn't depend on where you think any one creature is (you place the attack and it hits what it hits) why would something concealing itself in the area your attacking help it ?
I assume the developer's intent was to streamline the game mechanic, as we don't have a way for determining relative sub-square position. Makes the game play faster and easier just to hit everything and be done with it. It also makes you think twice about shooting it through your melee ally.
I agree from a real world logic point of view its doesn't make all that much sense, but it wouldn't be the first sacrifice made to aid playability.
the way I'm looking at this now, everything fits neatly, which kinda makes me think I'm right
Ignoring concealment doesn't necessarily save you from weird side cases. Nor assuming it doesn't really penetrate thick walls.
All it takes is total cover from a sufficiently large object.
Take a small space goblin (CR 1/3), hiding behind a medium sized computer rack (taking up the full 5x5x5 square) with total cover relative to the PC. They have been hit with an entangle weapon, and then hit with a sleep spell, making them helpless. Helpless drops their dex from +3 to -5. Entangled applies -2 to AC. Their KAC drops from 12 to 2. Medium sized computer rack has AC 3. PC with a Railgun rolls 2 to hit and enough damage to destroy the computer rack, if it had hit it. Given a 2 is high enough to hit the Goblin's AC, what happens?
the way I'm looking at this now, everything fits neatly, which kinda makes me think I'm right
You are.
you make a lot of good points and I agree it is somewhat unclear, but let me lay out a few more things ...the section is called "Areas with targets" not "Ranged attacks with areas", circumstantial but worth noting ..and as I said earlier if you make it a ranged attack it runs into a host of problems (such as concealment having different rules for these two different attack forms) but here is some more. ....what about horizon shield? pop one of those up and many of the line weapons go down to a 0ft range if they are ranged attacks. ...what about solarian reflection ..if it's a ranged attacks it seems it would work ...but how ? does the rest of the line continue past you or do reflect the whole line back ..and if so can it hit people in between?... the feet based reflection clearly states it doesn't work on a aoe even the one with a attack roll(under deflect as noted in reflect attack) ...and here's another real big problem, a ranged attack does requires you guess the square if your opponent has total concealment ...does a line weapon have to follow that rule? can I guess every square? and let's say there is a ally in the path with total concealment can I guess every square but the one he is in? .......there are no rules for how to apply rules to things that are multiple attack forms and that causes a host of problems
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you make a lot of good points and I agree it is somewhat unclear, but let me lay out a few more things ...the section is called "Areas with targets" not "Ranged attacks with areas", circumstantial but worth noting
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're implying is circumstantial. The area rules apply to more things than just ranged attacks, so I personally don't see a problem with it being called Areas with targets.
..and as I said earlier if you make it a ranged attack it runs into a host of problems (such as concealment having different rules for these two different attack forms) but here is some more.
Sorry, I've lost track of the discussion. Which two attack forms are we talking about here? I'm arguing concealment applies to ranged attack rolls unless explicitly stated otherwise. So that would be the same for automatic and line. Blast is explicitly exempt.
Anyways, if its not a ranged attack, I still want to know what you'd have me roll for to-hit, and where in the rules its from. I suppose there might be a generic attack roll rule I missed but I can't find it.
Say I have a level 20 Soldier with 28 Dex. They fire a paragon rail cannon. I roll a 10 on a d20. I've got +20 BAB, and a +9 Dex modifier. What KAC do I hit and why? If I don't add my dex, that is a serious balancing problem as late game you'll have a hard time hitting.
....what about horizon shield? pop one of those up and many of the line weapons go down to a 0ft range if they are ranged attacks.
Sounds like with short ranged line weapons you can't hit them. Sounds about right to me. Why is that a problem? Switch to a backup weapon in that case.
...what about solarian reflection ..if it's a ranged attacks it seems it would work ...but how ? does the rest of the line continue past you or do reflect the whole line back ..and if so can it hit people in between?...
GM's discretion. Its not the only place where you have to make up a ruling since not all possibilities have been covered. I'd personally bend the line there towards the target within 30 feet, hitting everything in between. A Solarian should aim wisely.
You run into the same types of questions with Automatic and blast weapons. Blast weapons are explicitly a ranged attack, or else the Soldier's Impactful attack doesn't make sense (page 114).
the feet based reflection clearly states it doesn't work on a aoe even the one with a attack roll(under deflect as noted in reflect attack)
I don't see why that is a problem. It says it doesn't work on AoEs, so it doesn't work on line weapons.
...and here's another real big problem, a ranged attack does requires you guess the square if your opponent has total concealment ...does a line weapon have to follow that rule?
Well, you're guessing the squares when you choose the AoE path. Which for a line weapon has to be in a line. Are you saying if you have a blind character, they always hit their desired target with a line weapon, even if they don't know what square they are in and don't include it in the line path?
can I guess every square? and let's say there is a ally in the path with total concealment can I guess every square but the one he is in?
You guess the line. And then everything in the line gets affected.
As for Ally, depends on how you place your line. If he's in the line, he gets shot at. If he not in the line, then no. Sometimes there's some wiggle room depending on how diagonal your aiming. But if they are, say, all in one horizontal line, then they're going to get hit.
Lets me try a different approach. Page 253 of concealment rules:
Additionally, some effects provide concealment against all attacks, regardless of whether any intervening concealment exists.
Lets say I have a character with displacement up. They have concealment against all attacks. Alternatively, the attacker is blind, which gives total concealment to all targets.
Concealment Miss Chance
Concealment gives the target of a successful attack a chance
that the attacker actually missed. This is called a miss chance.
Normally, the miss chance for concealment is 20%. Make the
attack normally; if the attacking creature would hit, the target
must roll a 20 or lower on a d% roll (see page 513) to avoid being
struck. Multiple concealment conditions do not stack.
The concealment application paragraph says nothing about ranged or melee attacks, just attacks.
So if I've got a concealment chance against all attacks, are you saying a line weapon isn't an attack even though its rolling an attack roll? It can't result in a "successful attack"?
Should I be treating total concealment derived from the rules on page 253 different from total concealment derived from displacement?
.......there are no rules for how to apply rules to things that are multiple attack forms and that causes a host of problems
Well, the automatic, blast, and line weapons do describe a procedure. In some cases individual attack rolls, in some cases one attack roll. However, they all result either in a miss or a succesful attack, to which a miss chance can be applied if there is a miss chance, and its not explicitly ignored (such as for a blast weapon).
I admit examples in the rules books would have been great. Certainly a FAQ entry dealing with AoE wepaons with attack rolls would be nice. With the specific issues of line weapons piercing total cover, covered. I think how I would rule it in games I run (whether SFS or home) is consistent enough, nor game breaking. I admit it hasn't come up yet for me to rule on. If someone in the SFS chain of command tells me to run a different way, I'll certainly do so for those SFS games.
Hiruma Kai "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're implying is circumstantial. The area rules apply to more things than just ranged attacks, so I personally don't see a problem with it being called Areas with targets." ...my first point about... (the section is called "Areas with targets" not "Ranged attacks with areas",)
Not debating you use your range attack modifier to hit with i just like explode and blast weapons (both of which you don't get concealment VS)
Hiruma Kai (about horizon shield) "Sounds like with short ranged line weapons you can't hit them. Sounds about right to me. Why is that a problem? Switch to a backup weapon in that case."
..........The real problem is you would still be able to hit people behind me because it only reduces its range vs me ....it would make no sense
(Xoshak4545 wrote:
...what about solarian reflection ..if it's a ranged attacks it seems it would work ...but how ? does the rest of the line continue past you or do reflect the whole line back ..and if so can it hit people in between?...
Hiruma Kai "GM's discretion. Its not the only place where you have to make up a ruling since not all possibilities have been covered. I'd personally bend the line there towards the target within 30 feet, hitting everything in between. A Solarian should aim wisely.
You run into the same types of questions with Automatic and blast weapons. Blast weapons are explicitly a ranged attack, or else the Soldier's Impactful attack doesn't make sense (page 114)."
Xoshak4545 wrote:
the feet based reflection clearly states it doesn't work on a aoe even the one with a attack roll(under deflect as noted in reflect attack)
Hiruma Kai "I don't see why that is a problem. It says it doesn't work on AoEs, so it doesn't work on line weapons." )
.......I was pointing out that the only other version of reflection i know of doesn't let you use it vs areas with targets to help illustrate how much the rules obviously didn't intend for it's use against line weapons ....hiding behind gm discretion for gaping rules gap isn't gonna help get to the bottom of this
Xoshak4545 wrote:
...and here's another real big problem, a ranged attack does requires you guess the square if your opponent has total concealment ...does a line weapon have to follow that rule? can I guess every square? and let's say there is a ally in the path with total concealment can I guess every square but the one he is in?
Hiruma Kai You guess the line. And then everything in the line gets affected.
As for Ally, depends on how you place your line. If he's in the line, he gets shot at. If he not in the line, then no. Sometimes there's some wiggle room depending on how diagonal your aiming. But if they are, say, all in one horizontal line, then they're going to get hit.
.....AND WE ARE BACK TO THE CRUX OF IT ...WHY WOULD IT BE A AREA EFFECT IN THAT REGARD BUT NOT ONE IN REGARDS TO CONCEALMENT ....I'M PRETTY SURE YOUR NOT MEANT TO PICK AND CHOOSE THE PARTS OF EACH YOU LIKE ....(and to clarify I'm talking about trying to shoot a invisible or hidden creature by guessing at his square...i said total concealment which may still give your location)
Hiruma Kai "The concealment application paragraph says nothing about ranged or melee attacks, just attacks. "
......"Sighs"... it does if you read the first paragraph as i have already pointed out
Xoshak4545 wrote:
.......there are no rules for how to apply rules to things that are multiple attack forms and that causes a host of problems
Hiruma Kai Well, the automatic, blast, and line weapons do describe a procedure. In some cases individual attack rolls, in some cases one attack roll. However, they all result either in a miss or a succesful attack, to which a miss chance can be applied if there is a miss chance, and its not explicitly ignored (such as for a blast weapon).
.......Not what i mean and your missing the point ....there is no rule set for how to apply certain effects and conditions that work differently vs a aoe and a ranged attack to something that is both a ranged attack and aoe ....you picking and choosing the parts you like best to try to make something you think makes sense and i get that ....but that's not a RAW solution
If its a area effect and we treat it as such (and under "areas with targets" it is referred to as a EFFECT ), than we know how it works vs everything ......if it's both, the multitude of rules problems that already exist and continue to arise would demand almost continuous faqs as new items and abilities that affect either area effects or ranged attacks come into existence....either that or they have to make a clarification for everything that exists now and include a side note for how to apply these things in all new items and effects ......and i don't think either of those things are going to happen
Hiruma Kai "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're implying is circumstantial. The area rules apply to more things than just ranged attacks, so I personally don't see a problem with it being called Areas with targets." ...my first point about... (the section is called "Areas with targets" not "Ranged attacks with areas",)
But an "area with targets" could produce a ranged attack as the effect, no? Effects is a very broad term that could refer to saving throws, ranged attacks, melee attacks, straight up damage, moving creatures around, or just about anything.
What if instead of firing a projectile, you fire a magic gun that summons a new gun for each target in each square of the AoE, and that new gun then makes a ranged attack roll at the target, then that summoned gun disappears in a puff of smoke. It an AoE that generates ranged attacks. Would concealment still not apply in that case?
Its an area of effect, with the effect being making ranged attacks. Thats how I look at the line, automatic, and blast weapons. They have an area of effect, and the effect on the targets is you make ranged attacks at them.
Its the same thing if you cast Explosive blast, you target the area, and the effect is the targets make a saving throw. I would follow the procedure for saving throws at that point. So if the target has improved evasion, I would apply that. Just because its an AoE causing the reflex save doesn't mean we skip the effects of improved evasion, for example.
Even if the target is in the middle of an empty field and they have nothing to actually block the square filling fire. Why should improved evasion logically reduce the damage to zero on a successful save? How did they do that without leaving the area of effect? There was fire everywhere and no where to go where the fire wasn't.
I don't ignore some things that apply to saving throws just because its an AoE and seems illogical. For the same reason, I don't ignore some things that apply to ranged attacks just because its an AoE and seems illogical.
Hiruma Kai (about horizon shield) "Sounds like with short ranged line weapons you can't hit them. Sounds about right to me. Why is that a problem? Switch to a backup weapon in that case."
..........The real problem is you would still be able to hit people behind me because it only reduces its range vs me ....it would make no sense
Thats already possible using your interpretation of the line weapon rules. A KAC 2 Goblin behind a KAC 3 wall is hit on a roll of 2, but the wall isn't. I'd argue it makes more in game sense than my goblin/wall example, because the horizon shield is curving spacetime. A straight line as we normally think of it is now curved.
.......I was pointing out that the only other version of reflection i know of doesn't let you use it vs areas with targets to help illustrate how much the rules obviously didn't intend for it's use against line...
Why do two reflection powers, which work very different (only requires a miss, while the other can make the attack miss) need to work the same? I just read it as two different powers, not as an indication that AoE effects can't be redirected. I suppose you can assume the developers left that language out of the Reflection rules, but unless they say something, reflection works on ranged attacks, with no restrictions. For the same reason, Reflection works without a weapon, without being able to move your arms, or without being able to make an attack.
Should the Solarian Reflection only be possible if you can use your weapon as well? We can apply the exact same argument to that restriction, since it illustrates the rules didn't intend for you to be able to reflect attacks without being able to make an attack with your weapon.
Their reasoning might be reflection is magic (and arguably a curving of spacetime since its a gravitation power). You never need contact the projectile(s). Deflect projectiles is literally placing a weapon in the way of the projectile, and perhaps they feel you can't put a single weapon in the way of multiple simultaneous bullets, like from an automatic weapon. It makes sense that can't use it if you can't use your weapon to put it in the way.
.....AND WE ARE BACK TO THE CRUX OF IT ...WHY WOULD IT BE A AREA EFFECT IN THAT REGARD BUT NOT ONE IN REGARDS TO CONCEALMENT ....I'M PRETTY SURE YOUR NOT MEANT TO PICK AND CHOOSE THE PARTS OF EACH YOU LIKE ....(and to clarify I'm talking about trying to shoot a invisible or hidden creature by guessing at his square...i said total concealment which may still give your location)
Its an area of effect in terms of picking which squares you effect (i.e. a line). But then its not an AoE in regards to concealment? But the area of effect rules say nothing about concealment. Its the individual effects (i.e. make a ranged attack, make a saving throw, simply deal damage automatically, moving targets around) may or may not interact with the concealment rules.
I think I see the fundamental disagreement we have. I believe Area of Effects simply state an effect (which could be anything) happens to everything in an area. I then apply the full rules for that effect.
I think you're saying, Area of Effects in addition to the effect they say happens, also have the property of changing some of the normal rules for individually applied effects, because it leads to weird situations, like concealment helping your ally in the line.
Given weird situations already happen in the rules, I happen to not consider it a compelling argument as to the developer's intent. Given they're trying to write a fun game as opposed to a full reality simulator, weird corner cases are inevitable due to constraints from desired speed of play, word count available in books, and the simple number of permutations that are possible in a table top format. GMs are there to make calls when players inevitably get creative and want to do something not covered by the rules. Its one of their greatest strengths compared to, say, computer RPGs.
However, I understand if it is a compelling argument for you. Which at the end of the day is perfectly fine.
"The concealment application paragraph says nothing about ranged or melee attacks, just attacks. "
......"Sighs"... it does if you read the first paragraph as i have already pointed out
The first 3 paragraph talks about determining if you have concealment on page 253, under the heading Concealment. That talks about ranged and melee attacks. However, that section also ends with a short paragraph saying some effects provide concealment against all attacks, irregardless of positioning.
Under the heading Concealment Miss Chance, which is what I referred to as the concealment application paragraph, it doesn't talk about ranged or melee attacks, just attacks. What you actually do with concealment is explain there. After you've been successfully attacked (i.e. hit), you then get to roll a d%, and if its less than or equal to the concealment chance, the attack actually missed. Doesn't matter how that successful attack happened. If an attack roll was rolled, it resulted in success, then concealment applies unless some other specific rule says it doesn't.
.......Not what i mean and your missing the point ....there is no rule set for how to apply certain effects and conditions that work differently vs a aoe and a ranged attack to something that is both a ranged attack and aoe ....you picking and choosing the parts you like best to try to make something you think makes sense and i get that ....but that's not a RAW solution
An AoE description by itself only determines targets. Its purely a targeting determination. Thats the only portion of the rules it interacts with. It tells you which targets will then go through the steps for your effect. An AoE could be combined with nearly anything. I don't believe there is such as a stand alone AoE that is not combined with some other rule somewhere. I know this because it wouldn't do anything.
I think a comparison you're looking for would be an AoE that applies a saving throw versus an AoE that applies a ranged attack roll, for example. Since saving throws don't interact with concealment, I think you feel its strange that an AoE that applies a ranged attack roll would apply concealment.
Its an AoE that forces a saving throw (then have to refer to saving throw rules), or an AoE that automatically does damage (then have to refer to damage resolution), or an AoE that gives a condition (then have to refer to condition rules), or an AoE that moves the target (then have to refer to movement rules), or an AoE that creates an attack roll (then have to refer to attack rules).
Concealment miss chance is in the attack rules. It happens after you've determined you have hit, but before you apply damage. A 20% miss chance from Blur, or a 50% miss chance due to displacement, doesn't affect targeting at all, and is way after the targeting step.
I admit, total concealment has some interaction with targeting, by saying you can't attack a target directly that has total concealment, but have to attack into the square. I would argue AoEs by their nature attack into squares, as they affect all targets in a square, and thus satisfy the total concealment targeting requirement. However, the whole point of that section is even if you do attack into the correct square, there's still a 50% miss chance. This seems fine to me.
So, in summary, I understand you don't like allies benefiting from concealment, but being forced to attack them anyway with an AoE applying a ranged attack. However, I think thats what the developer's intent was. I have a fundamental different view of AoEs (that it affects targeting only, not effect resolution) as opposed to a perhaps more holistic view which tries to applying real world logic to the rules. I'm hoping how I view the rules is clear, as thats mostly what I was trying to get across in this discussion.
area of effects do not even require line of sight or even awareness of everyone in the area and a line weapon only needs line of effect to it's generating point(a corner of your square)
I see rules for "areas with targets" i don't see a section for AOE's that generate ranged attacks ...seems like something they would have included
A Line weapon can hit everything in the area even if it's 4 tiny creatures a square for its full range
A line weapon can't choose to exclude allies (but you think concealment would still help me miss them?)
A line weapon targets every square in it's area (areas with targets)
so you don't choose a square to attack as you would with a ranged attack vs a invisible target
why would it suddenly become a ranged attack for the purpose of concealment...it's pretty obvious it's intended to be a area effect from everything else we know about it ...and logically it could be no help given everything else we know about how it works
And There are no rules for determining concealment vs a AOE because you do not require even line of sight .....this part "However, that section also ends with a short paragraph saying some effects provide concealment against all attacks, irregardless of positioning. " all attacks likely means melee and ranged not aoe's that don't even require line of sight
Nothing under line weapon or areas with targets ever says they are resolved as ranged attack ...this attack form has its own specific rules which are listed with the other area effects ...specifics trump general rules
And your way still causes way more problems (conflicting concealment rules and line of sight rules, conflicting targeting of invisible creature rules, horizon shield cause line not to have the reach to hit the person using it but still hitting person behind them , solarian reflection which does not have the rules to handle a line weapon
I'm pretty amazed this hasn't shown up on the FAQ yet.
|
I'm pretty amazed this hasn't shown up on the FAQ yet.
I'm hardly "amazed". Very few Starfinder FAQs get posted to begin with, so this one not making it in isn't amazing.
(Also, from a glance through the first page, I don't see the big problem. Line weapons aren't the same as line AoE spells. The word "line" looks similar but they're very different beasts. Line weapons are a very specific thing that trumps some generic rules about attacking through obstacles. It's pretty much all there in the description of the property.)
I'm pretty amazed this hasn't shown up on the FAQ yet.I'm hardly "amazed". Very few Starfinder FAQs get posted to begin with, so this one not making it in isn't amazing.
(Also, from a glance through the first page, I don't see the big problem. Line weapons aren't the same as line AoE spells. The word "line" looks similar but they're very different beasts. Line weapons are a very specific thing that trumps some generic rules about attacking through obstacles. It's pretty much all there in the description of the property.)
I also think it's fairly clear, but the question lead to a very long debate with many participants and no real resolution, which is why I thought it would get FAQ'd.
It seems like the FAQ is mostly used to issue errata, so maybe "amazed" was the wrong word. Would you accept "dismayed?"
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any FAQ update on any of the many questions still left unanswered would be welcome at this point.
By the rules of line weapons I think it does go through the wall, though for things beyond relatively thin walls I think I agree with BNW that allowing it to pass through completely without interacting with the hp of the wall is too easy. As it sits a adamantine bullet out of line weapon could pass through hardness 29 material that is as thick as it's firing range, and honestly that just doesn't seem right to me.
So by the rules, I believe the answer is yes it does.
But I think the rules probably need to be looked at and revised.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't think it's a big deal if they go through a wall of any thickness. I think people are forgetting that line weapons are really, really bad. They are all unwieldy and have nearly the shortest range. They can't damage anything beyond their listed range, and they barely pass 40' until the teens. I think they're a neat gimmick.
|
|
Fun fact, a tiny fire elemental can block a flame pistol/flame rifle/burner pellet (the three weapons with a fire line) for a huge white dragon if it stands in the line and the shooter hits the elemental's EAC.
Second fun fact, the huge white dragon will not block the flame pistol/flame rifle/burner's pellet from passing through it, if the shooter hits the dragon's EAC.
Third fun fact, a ghost will completely block an adamantine projectile fired by a non-fusioned rail cannon if the shooter managed to hit it's KAC.
Fourth fun fact, a huge white dragon will not block an adamantine projectile fired by a rail cannon if it gets hit by it, and neither will the tiny fire elemental in front or behind it (though the tiny elemental will benefit from cover/concealment if it's behind the dragon).
Fifth confusing fact, a wall will stop an adamantine projectile fired by a rail cannon...
What's the difference between a huge white dragon and a huge dragon statue besides that one is a creature and the other an object? Taking the tiny fire elemental again, why would the statue prevent me from hitting the tiny fire elemental with my rail cannon with adamantine projectiles when the dragon would not? *provided I overcome the AC of the dragon to damage him and provided I overcome the hardness of the statue to deal damage to it*. Not hitting the dragon would mean the line continues anyway and if I miss the statue I miss everything in front and behind anyway. In case you want to argue but the dragon moves, assume he's paralyzed/sleeping and doesn't move.
Replace huge dragon statue with wall please.
RFLMTO at the ghost example of rules wonkyness. See thats where raw's gone so wonky you just have to say no.
What's the difference between a huge white dragon and a huge dragon statue besides that one is a creature and the other an object?
The dragon would provide soft cover the statue would provide hard cover/regular cover.
Replace huge dragon statue with wall please.
I don't think that works.
The rules generally assume a creature isn't taking up their entire square, is fighting. The dragon is doing dragony things: roaring, swiping at you, breathing in dramatic fashion, trying to knock you silly with its tail etc.
In short, it's standing up. There's area around and under its legs you can shoot around or shoot through.
A huge dragon statue would have the same problem. You can hide behind its treetrunk legs but you're probably still visible and shootable.
So the rules work and make sense there.
If the dragon lies down or curls around its eggs/hatchling to protect it or something you might adjudicate that as providing total cover. I think that would get you back to a sensible answer with the "you need line of effect" interpretation of the line rules. The dragon then requires you burning through its hitpoints to get at the thing on the other side, just like i said a wall would. But that's not exactly the default fighting tactic of a critter, so I don't think it's unusual that you'd need to adjudicate the unusual situation.
I honestly don't think it's a big deal if they go through a wall of any thickness. I think people are forgetting that line weapons are really, really bad. They are all unwieldy and have nearly the shortest range. They can't damage anything beyond their listed range, and they barely pass 40' until the teens. I think they're a neat gimmick.
But they are very easy to land for an area of effect weapon, and not being able to hit two opponents (provided there are at least 2 opponents) happens rarely.
So, you can nearly double their damage as soon as there are many opponents.Blast weapons are the hardest ones to land. And they get a -2 to hit. Also, they have even shorter range.
Automatic weapons are also very hard to land, take a -4 to hit, a full action to operate and exhaust your clip. At least, you can use them normally.
Explode weapons are in my opinion the best of the 4 types, but they are nearly useless against an opponent with Evasion, as most of them also have high Reflex saves. Also, late game, Saves tend to go too high compared to the DCs you can get, making it a bad end game weapon.
I don't find line weapons to be bad. My "double liner" mounted Mechanic quite loves them.
|
|
BNW: the line weapon literally shoots through the dragon not around it.
Lets make the examples a curled up paralyzed sleeping huge dragon and the same dragon but now instead of paralyzed he's been turned to stone.
For purpose of the line weapons the tiny fire elemental is standing in the middle of the three squares which is pretty much completely blocked off by dragon.
So we now have a situation where our line has to pass through either 3 squares of living tissue with cold resistance, fire weakness, and a bunch of hitpoints, or through 3 squares with non-living tissue with hardness.
We'll go with both cold resistance and hardness 15.
Now we first use a cold based line weapon. In order to get through the dragon and hit the fire elemental the line needs to deal 16 points of damage or more. Would you rule the line stopping at/in the dragon?
In order to get through the petrified dragon the cold line would have to overcome the hardness and then avoid getting page 409'd because cold is ineffective against stone.
Next we use a plasma line weapon. While we know it's not very effective against the elemental its the only weapon our hapless testsubject is carrying now. The line goes through the living tissue like a hot knife through butter and will even continu past the fire elemental due to being both fire and electrical damage.
In order to go through the petrified version the line encounters hardness, which deals with both fire and electric so in order to make it to the discussion on not getting page 409'd needs to deal at least 31 points of damaga.
Third we use our railcannon with normal rounds. The living tissue dragon once again poses no issues to stopping our line.
However when we get to the petrified one we need to overcome the hardness to get to the elemental.
Annoyed by a stupid petrified body blocking we spend a move action to load adamantine rounds and fire again. Lo and behold the line now goes through the petrified dragon like a knife through butter. The discussion of being page 409'd will be pretty quick as you are using ammo designed to punch through hardness.
In all of these we've yet to adjucate the cover for the elemental, but as long as the huge sized matter takes damage we get to compare our attackroll to the adjusted AC of the elemental.