| 26 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is there any way to avoid having cover in a 5 by 5 hallway? Does going along a line count as going through it for purposes of calculating cover?
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
Now, no ones ever been able to figure out from pathfinder if lines were "sided" ie, if you went along a line were you going through it?
In the book. Obozaya is around a 10 foot cooridoor from a ksarik or something and it has cover because her attack to its South East corner goes along the wall. In pathfinder, it would have had cover because of a hard corner rule, but this means every attack in a 5 foot cooridoor is going to have cover because your attacks go along the wall.
|
You're parsing the paragraph wrong.
• 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
• the target has cover
In an infinite 5 foot hallway, no square or border either blocks line of effect or provides cover.
|
|
Oh, I see what you're talking about:
Obozaya is adjacent to the ksarik, but lines from every corner of her square to all the corners of the ksarik’s square pass through or run along the border of a wall. The ksarik has cover from her, and she has cover from it. Thus she can make a ranged attack without provoking an attack of opportunity from the ksarik.
The explanation of the diagram does not match the explanation of cover.
Therefore, one of them is in error.
Good catch. Let's FAQ it.
|
The cover rules essentially consist of two parts: the description of cover in the primary rule, and the example that shows how that works in practice. They use subtly different language in Starfinder.
I think it's a result of poorly transposing the same "rule-in-two-places" thing from Pathfinder, where on page 194 Merisiel doesn't have cover from the ogre.
The problem in Pathfinder is that the example lets the ogre use the rules for ranged attacks as if it were not adjacent to Merisiel, so that example is flawed too, just in a different way.
Pathfinder also has the "along a line" language for ranged cover, and Starfinder basically chucks the melee cover rules and uses only the Pathfinder ranged cover rules.
---
So I think the text is a bit borked, but differently borked than in its parent. The example I think is wrong, as the 5ft corridor cover situation is obviously absurd.
One of them is in error OR going | a | line counts as going through it. That would make the two ideas work together but again, get very silly in an air duct.
|
|
Just found that this exact question was asked nearly two years ago and the consensus was that it was a copy/paste error from Pathfinder.
Ironic, given that Pathfinder had copy/paste errors from D&D3.5.
|
Just found that this exact question was asked nearly two years ago and the consensus was that it was a copy/paste error from Pathfinder.
Ironic, given that Pathfinder had copy/paste errors from D&D3.5.
Yup, that's the big problem with backwards compatibility and games that are similar/sameish by design and I'm really hoping that most of these can get cleaned up in a year or two in time for a good softcover copy of the CRB.
The two sections are definitely different.
The diagram tells us "every corner" of your square to "every corner" of the opponent's square.
The rule section tells us to "choose one corner" of your square to "every corner" of the opponent's square.
The diagram isn't wrong because it's not saying you need to check every corner, what the diagram is saying is that it Wouldn't really matter, any corner is going to have the same problem
What the text isn't clear about is if going | down a | line counts as going through it (since if this was math no, lines are non dimensional things but on a piece of paper like a battlemat it has some width) . The sidenote on the chart spells out that going | a | DOES count. Which gets weird..
That doesn't matter.
I bolded it earlier.
The border must either 1) block line of effect, or 2) provide cover.
For either to happen, the line being drawn from your chosen corner has to intersect the border.
That's not possible in an infinite hallway.
That's a mite circular.
The wall certainly blocks line of effect. While you can read a line running along itself as not intersecting itself the diagram very clearly says the opposite. So what you have is a reasonable interpretation of what's written that would contradict the diagram or the diagram that would contradict any kind of sense.
Without it though, you have free shots around hard corners.
|
|
Oh, you know, I just realized there's a third possible explanation:
The "every corner" of your square to "every corner" of theirs might be referring to just melee combat.
The diagram is telling us that Obozaya can make her shot without risking an AoO, because she has cover, but doesn't tell us that the ksarik has cover from Obozaya.
So, maybe for ranged attacks, it's "best corner to every corner", and for melee attacks, it's "every corner to every corner"?
The diagram is telling us that Obozaya can make her shot without risking an AoO, because she has cover, but doesn't tell us that the ksarik has cover from Obozaya.
"the ksarik has cover from her and she has cover from it"
I don't think there's an interpretation of the given material that can resolve this.
|
|
@Nefreet: to my understanding, Starfinder really reduced the distinction between melee and ranged cover. The calculation for cover-or-not has been unified into one-to-all-corners. The remaining difference is that cover provided by creatures (as opposed to walls) is soft cover, and that soft cover doesn't help against melee attacks.
Since we no longer distinguish between melee attacks from up close and melee attacks from reach, it actually gives a boost to people using reach weapons while behind another ally.
Soft Cover
Creatures, even enemies, between you and the src of an effect provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, soft cover provides no bonus to Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to attempt a Stealth check.
Huh. I hadn't noticed the implication there that melee weapons didn't have to deal with cover
|
|
It's a subtle thing. In Pathfinder, since you compute melee cover by drawing lines from all corners to all corners, it would have been too easy to gain cover just by standing adjacent:
EE
Y
You have clear lines to all the corners of the left Enemy, so that one gets no cover. The right Enemy would have already had melee cover against You. That's why Pathfinder says soft cover doesn't apply to melee. However, for reach attacks you use the ranged cover rules. So:
EE
E
Y
The top-left enemy has cover, because lines are obstructed and soft cover only counts when using the melee cover rules, not using the ranged cover rules. The top-right enemy is threatened using the ranged cover rules as well, and there are clean lines possible, so it doesn't earn cover from you.
---
Starfinder no longer calculates cover differently depending on distance, but ranged attacks are affected by soft cover while melee attacks (even with reach) aren't.
E
E
Y
If ou shoot the top enemy he has cover. If you attack with a whip he doesn't have cover.
This also has consequences for Attacks of Opportunity. It used to be possible to set up a soft cover corridor to get close to big enemies without provoking, but that's harder in Starfinder.
It's a subtle thing.
A little too subtle because starfinder/pathfinder/3.5 / english in general treats affirming the consequent?* as important in a conversational implication despite not logically following. The rules aren't even very consistent in how they do that.
Creatures, even enemies, between you and the src of an effect provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC
Which CAN be conversationally read as -melee attacks don't bother with cover at all- or as a copy paste error from pathfinder where they were split or that there are rules somewhere else for how melee attacks work with cover. You don't wind up actually knowing that melee doesn't bother with cover from reading this.
In Pathfinder, since you compute melee cover by drawing lines from all corners to all corners
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
But that didn't include creatures at all. That was just for solid objects.
You have clear lines to all the corners of the left Enemy, so that one gets no cover. The right Enemy would have already had melee cover against You. That's why Pathfinder says soft cover doesn't apply to melee. However, for reach attacks you use the ranged cover rules. So:
They wouldn't unless one of them was a wall.
*Basically, if you say "no purple dragons" you haven't technically said yes to blue dragons or all non humans but your language suggests that every level of specificity you used matters.
|
|
@BNW: I can't really tell whether you're agreeing with me or not.
Starfinder has only two situations:
* You only use one rule for deciding whether an enemy would have cover: the 1 to 4 corner line drawing exercise. You use this procedure both for ranged and melee attacks.
* Melee attacks aren't hindered by soft cover. There is no difference between melee attacks made against adjacent enemies and attacks made using reach.
Pathfinder has three situations:
* Ranged attacks use the 1-to-4 method and care about soft cover.
* Melee attacks against adjacent enemies use 4-to-4 lines but don't care about soft cover.
* Melee attacks against enemies that aren't adjacent use the ranged cover rules (so 1-to-4 lines and soft cover matters).
Practically, that means:
* Allies aren't as effective at providing cover against reach attacks in Starfinder. (Because non-adjacent melee attacks aren't treated as ranged attacks, so they don't care about soft cover.)
* You can make melee attacks around hard corners now. (Melee now always uses the 1-to-4 lines method.)
* Because you can make melee attacks around hard corners, you can also make attacks of opportunity. This makes doorways more beneficial as chokepoint.
@BNW: I can't really tell whether you're agreeing with me or not.
I agree that you CAN read the rule as "there is no such thing as melee cover" but disagree that "there is no melee cover" is a settled rule. Looking at the other rules, I think the stronger argument is that creatures still provide cover against melee.
creatures, even enemies, between you and the src of an effect provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC
What does that logically state about how creatures provide cover?
-there is a soft implication that they do not
-Nothing there says outright that they do not. If you know that "Bob is at the restaurant" then where is Jim? You don't know. Not "not in the restaurant".
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.
This rule on the other hand flat out says that the creature provides cover. And since we're not distinguishing between melee and ranged anymore it's a very direct "creatures provide cover against melee" which trumps an implication that they don't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity
If you have cover relative to an enemy, it can’t make an attack of opportunity against you.(...)
Soft Cover
Creatures, even enemies, between you and the source of an effect provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, soft cover provides no bonus to Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to attempt a Stealth check.
Okay, if you read just the first section then you would certainly think that creatures cause cover just like walls do. But then the second section goes on to specifically call out soft cover, and only in the context of ranged attacks. That paragraph means something.
I don't think it means that ranged attacks suffer an extra +4 AC from soft cover, on top of an in between creature providing regular cover. That would be a +8 cover modifier against ranged attacks but only +4 against melee (reach) attacks. Doesn't seem likely.
I also don't think the cover is soft against ranged attacks but hard against melee attacks.
I think the meaning is that while both walls and creatures can provide cover, creatures provide soft cover that only applies to ranged attacks, and no cover against melee attacks.
---
I'd say this happened because someone was copy-pasting snippets of cover rules in from Pathfinder trying to unify melee and ranged cover rules from the 3 situations I mentioned to as few as possible, but wanted to keep the distinction between soft and hard cover. And then it flows across to the next page and you don't see that you have an inconsistent definition stretched between two sections on different sides of the paper.
Okay, if you read just the first section then you would certainly think that creatures cause cover just like walls do. But then the second section goes on to specifically call out soft cover, and only in the context of ranged attacks. That paragraph means something.
Yes, but does the word ranged being there mean something? It could either be
1) a change from the rules that it doesn't outright say but only implies. Remember the rule doesn't actually SAY " soft cover doesn't apply to melee attacks". It's inferred.
2) a copy paste error from pathfinders definition of soft cover that no longer applies because starfinder doesn't differentiate ranged and melee cover rules. It wouldn't be possible for soft cover to apply to non reach melee in pathfinder so it's exclusion isn't surprising.
|
|
1) It basically says "soft cover applies to ranged attacks". I think it's strongly implied that it doesn't apply to melee attacks; why else call out ranged attacks specifically?
2) You mean that the entire soft cover paragraph should be deleted? It's possible, but I doubt it. I think they want to distinguish between hard cover helping more against explosions than soft cover. It wouldn't crash the game to ignore the Soft Cover paragraph and only use the main Cover section for rules.
1) It basically says "soft cover applies to ranged attacks". I think it's strongly implied that it doesn't apply to melee attacks; why else call out ranged attacks specifically?
Because it's copy pasting the definition from pathfinder where melee attacks had their own rules, and those rules made a melee attack through soft cover a virtual impossibility. Implications rely on an awareness of context that's lost in a copy paste.
2) You mean that the entire soft cover paragraph should be deleted?
The word RANGED might be a copy paste error. Take that out and there's still plenty of reason to have the paragraph: keeping people from hiding behind the vesk, the vesk not providing the reflex save is the main point of the paragraph.
I think that to say "the rules might allow for melee cover because they don't expressly exclude it"
Not the argument on two fronts. More or less you're killing your own argument with your examples when you use it in the cover rules rather than the definition of soft cover.
1) The rules allow for melee cover because they don't expressly exclude
it in the cover rules.
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.
If I am attacking with a pike through my Vesk and into the monster my line will include a creature. This 100%, flat out, directly says that my my attack has cover.
2) You have to argue that SOMETHING is an artifact from pathfinder anyway. Either the word ranged in the definition of soft cover OR the cover rules didn't mention soft cover against melee because they forgot that reach weapons used to use ranged cover rules and that there ever were melee and ranged cover rules. As written there is absolutely cover against melee because a differentiation from ranged and melee doesn't exist in starfinder.
18 FAQ clicks so far!
I think I'll draft up some sample diagrams to take with me to PaizoCon so that my players understand how cover works at my tables.
I think If i take out the hard cover rule for melee then it just works like pathfinder.
Creatures...provide you with cover against ranged attacksHow do you read this to also mean melee cover?
I don't read that to also mean melee cover.
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.
I'm reading THIS to mean melee cover. When you're poking a pike through your vesk and into the monster because it flat out says they have cover when you're poking your spear through the vesk. So how do you read that as there's no such thing as melee cover?
I just don't read all the rules as perfectly non contradictory, much less implications from rules not contradicting with the things they say flat out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paraphrased maximum simple, the CRB states something like this right now:
[Main section] COVER
"walls and creatures provide cover, and cover does [this]"
[Subsection] Soft Cover
"creatures provide soft cover against ranged attacks; soft cover does [less than normal cover]"
This is ambiguous. Do you apply soft cover on top of regular cover for ranged attacks? Do you not apply creature-caused cover for melee attacks? Do you apply soft cover for ranged attacks when creatures intervene, but hard cover if creatures get in the way of a melee attack?
Basically, one of these rules needs pruning for it to be clear and consistent.
A) Remove the reference to creatures providing regular cover from the main cover rule.
or
B) Cut the soft cover rule.
or
C) Be explicit that the soft cover rule overrides the base cover rule when it comes to creatures.
This is ambiguous. Do you apply soft cover on top of regular cover for ranged attacks?
I don't think anyone is actually doing this.
Why not just removed the word ranged from the soft cover rules? You seem determined to make the contradiction an untenable position.
It's an interesting question, though, because the bonuses from cover are untyped - so if you meet the requirements for multiple types of cover, technically, the rules say they stack.
Pretty sure that's a no. You either have cover or you don't. It's binary.
Is there any text that actually says that?
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.
"the target has cover" There isn't any mention of multiple forms of cover, multiple lines of cover or anything else but a simple yes/no.
Does a line passing over Your ysoki, the vesk, the crate, and the gunport contain a creature or pass through a square or border that blocks lined of effect or provides cover? Yes. That's it. Not how many or what kinds of cover it passed through.
|
|
If we can't even agree on what the RAW (let alone RAI) rules are, then it's hard to say they're working as intended.
My take on soft cover is that "soft cover is like cover except for the explicit differences", and those differences are (1) no bonus on reflex saves, (2) soft cover doesn't allow you to begin Stealth.
It doesn't say that it works different from cover in other ways, so:
* It also protects against AoOs.
* Things that negate cover, like some scopes, also work on soft cover.
As for melee attacks, I see three possible rules interpretations:
A) They treat creatures as hard cover, because only ranged attacks treat creatures as soft cover. Very literal, but the distinction doesn't make much sense. How often are you rolling reflex saves against melee attacks? And how does the Stealth comment even make sense then?
B) Melee attacks ignore creature cover entirely.
C) Melee attacks also treat creatures as soft cover. The intended distinction was between hard objects and soft creatures, not ranged and melee.
I started out thinking it was B but I'm leaning more in the direction of C now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But cover from two sources does not give you anything more than cover from one source does, so you still wouldn't get the AC bonus twice.
For what it's worth, the official wiki at Archives of Nethys makes no mention of the "run along a border" rule from the illustration in the rules. I interpret this to mean that rule is in error and "along the border of a wall" does not apply to Starfinder.