Does everyone have cover in a 5 by 5 hallway or is the sidenote wrong?


Rules Questions


23 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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Oh, I see what you're talking about:

The diagram on page 253 wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:

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.


Nefreet wrote:

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..

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


Nefreet wrote:

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't see a problem with an unimpeded shot around a hard corner.

I have always thought Starfinder encouraged that, because firefights and seeking cover are such an integral part of combat.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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"?


Nefreet wrote:


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.

Sovereign Court

@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

Sovereign Court

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

So I take it you believe that the diagram is in error?


Ascalaphus wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Methinks we need more people clicking the FAQ button, otherwise I have a feeling I'll be linking to this thread in the future.

Sovereign Court

Nefreet wrote:
So I take it you believe that the diagram is in error?

I think that the PF1 diagram is in error, and the Starfinder diagram is in error in a new and different way.

Sovereign Court

@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.


Ascalaphus wrote:
@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.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p.253 wrote:

COVER

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.


Ascalaphus wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

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.


Ascalaphus wrote:
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.

Quote:
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" hinges from our understanding as Starfinder as a mutation of pathfinder, and is technically wrong minded. Starfinder is it's own game, and if we operate too heavily on assumptions based on similarities to Pathfinder we risk misinterpretation. For example, two handed weapons do not apply strength and a half to damage anymore. They just get larger damage die. The book does not expressly state that "two handed melee weapons do not get 1.5 strength" or "two handed melee weapons are x1 strength," it just says "melee weapons add strength to damage."another example would be the ranged attack rules. It does not expressly state "you do not get a -4 penalty for firing on a for engaged in melee with another creature." But the game still functions that way. Because that -4 firing into melee is a pathfinder rule, which is a different game, so if it's not in the Rulebook it's just not a rule. In this case, if it does not expressly state that soft cover "applies to ranged, melee, and thrown weapon attacks' or simply " applies to all attacks" then it needs to be taken on it's own wording of "applies to ranged attacks." We can theorize if it's in error or a typo or not intended all we want, but rules as written are pretty clear on that tidbit.

Frankly, there should be FAQ about the intent of this passage to clear up confusion, but to me as it is written it's pretty clear.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


Pogiforce wrote:
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.


Nefreet wrote:

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.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Soft Cover wrote:
Creatures...provide you with cover against ranged attacks

How do you read this to also mean melee cover?


Nefreet wrote:
Soft Cover wrote:
Creatures...provide you with cover against ranged attacks
How 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.

Sovereign Court

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.


Quote:
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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
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.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:

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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

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? I don't know that it would be reasonable to try to claim, saw, Cover and Improved Cover at the same time, but I could see Soft Cover combining with another form of cover.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


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.


I hadn't realized that the base rules for cover expressly stated creatures and objects/environments. So yeah, it states pretty expressly that cover does apply to melee attacks through creatures, because the base cover rule does not expressly state that it has to be a ranged attack.

However, because of the writing of the base cover rule there appears to be a lot of potential for confusion. For example, as Ascaphalus has said, the soft cover rule doesn't say you gain soft cover "instead of" regular cover if the thing between you and your target is a creature.

There's also a question of whether soft cover is considered "cover" for the purpose of AoOs, as it's listed separately, and is technically a different status than cover that applies different bonuses.in pathfinder my GMs always ruled that soft cover didn't protect from AoOs.

This also means that, based on RAW, if you stand next to a creature and use reach to attack a creature behind him, he has cover. But if you guarded step back and instead shoot that same target, it's soft cover.

Which now that I think about it, may have been the intent. From a realism standpoint, what do you want to do to protect a friend trying to do something when some big thing is attacking him? The first thing to do would be get in the way.

So yeah, I'm actually convinced that the rules by RAW function exactly as intended, just could probably use more clarification.

Sovereign Court

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.


I'm still going A, because it's a literal interpretation. I wouldn't say the distinction doesn't make sense, so much as the distinction is inconsequential mechanically for reasons you already pointed out.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


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.

So, how do you determine which cover "counts"? If the conditions for both Soft Cover and Partial Cover are met, do you only get the bonus of Soft Cover? Or do you get the benefits of Partial Cover in regards to Reflex saves and Stealth checks, but the benefits of Soft Cover to AC?

Like, it actually does matter if multiple types of cover could be in effect.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

"Cover" is a bonus type. It is not untyped. Multiple instances of cover do not stack.


Nefreet wrote:
"Cover" is a bonus type. It is not untyped. Multiple instances of cover do not stack.

That is not correct. The rules text is not "Cover grants you a +4 cover bonus to AC", it's "Cover grants you a +4 bonus to AC".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

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.


David knott 242 wrote:

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.

1: There's a reason why I cited the combination of Soft Cover and Partial Cover - which is a specific combination where you can't just call one of them the "best" one and say only that one applies. You either have to count both in some form, say you take the lower AC bonus, or say you don't get the Reflex bonus and can't use Stealth.

2: What actually says that the bonuses don't combine?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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.

Sovereign Court

I think Soft and Partial are orthagonal concepts. Someone could have soft partial cover.

Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Does everyone have cover in a 5 by 5 hallway or is the sidenote wrong? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.