I have a question regarding enemies giving cover to other enemies against ranged attacks. I'll give a specific situation, and then get to my main question (please correct me If I'm making a mistake with my understanding of the rules)
Let's say I'm standing in a straight line of four adjacent 5ft boxes, in the following order:
Ranger - Fighter - Ghoul_1 - Ghoul_2
I am playing the Ranger, and I'm trying to shoot one of the ghouls.
When attacking Ghoul_1 with a bow I have to consider -4 penalty to Attack Roll for him being in melee with the Fighter, and another -4 penalty to the Attack Roll for the cover that the Fighter provides to Ghoul_1. Which is -8 to Attack Roll.
When attacking Ghoul_2 with a bow I have to consider -4 penalty to Attack Roll from the cover provided by the Fighter, and another -4 penalty to Attack Roll for the cover that Ghoul_1 provides to Ghoul_2. Which is also -8 to Attack Roll.
Now, in all that, my question is: if I'm aiming for Ghoul_2 (as in the second example), and I miss my attack because of the -4 penalty to Attack Roll from the cover that Ghoul_1 provides to Ghoul_2 (my Attack is for instance 14 vs 16 AC) do I hit Ghoul_1 instead of Ghoul_2 - as he IS the one providing him with the cover?
Serum covered it, and I'd like to Echo him. same way you dont hit your friend when you miss by 4, you dont hit the enemy. This is to keep things balanced, and your friend wouldnt be too pleased if the rules were changed impartially this way ;)
Cover doesn't stack; only apply the strongest version.
Ghoul 2 only has a +4 bonus to AC against your attacks. No, you don't hit Ghoul 1 if you miss Ghoul 2 by 4 or less, just like you don't hit the fighter if you miss Ghoul 1.
Thanks. Wasn't sure if covers stack in any way, wanted to clear that one out as well.
Serum covered it, and I'd like to Echo him. same way you dont hit your friend when you miss by 4, you dont hit the enemy. This is to keep things balanced, and your friend wouldnt be too pleased if the rules were changed impartially this way ;)
I understand that the rules always apply to monsters and PCs alike (unless specifically stated otherwise). My question is rather about 2 allied creatures in a line, where the target of the ranged attack is the guy at the back.
In my understanding shooting at a foe (Ghoul_1) that my ally (the fighter) is unintentionally giving cover to (where I intentionally try not to hit him), would be different then shooting at 2 enemies in a line - where I'm happy to hit either, and I am not trying to avoid hitting just preferring to hit the guy in the back (Ghoul_2).
Assuming a changed example where there's a (Ranger - space - Ghoul_1 - Ghoul_2). I would as a GM consider a homerule that the Ranger can try to attack Ghoul_2, and if the Attack roll is prevented by the bonus +4AC from cover coming from Ghoul_1 (but would hit without this cover), the Attack Roll would then be contested with the AC of Ghoul_1. Just like in Ally Shield feat.
Whenever you are the target of a melee or ranged attack and are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you can initiate this feat to skillfully pull the abettor into harm’s way or dodge behind the abettor as an immediate action.
You gain cover against that attack (and only that attack). If the attack misses you but would have hit you if not for the cover bonus to your armor class, the abettor becomes the target of the attack and the attacker must make a new attack roll (with all the same modifiers) against the abettor’s armor class.
Just putting it out there, wondering how other people interpret it, and if there are some hard stated rules or general inconsistencies directly opposing this concept.
|
Just because Ghoul 1 provided a cover bonus to AC to Ghoul 2 doesn't mean you damage Ghoul 1 if you miss Ghoul 2 due to the cover. Ghoul 1 has its own AC, and you're not specifically aiming at it. The arrow might have deflected obliquely off of Ghoul 1, or Ghoul 1's movement distracted you enough that you couldn't get a good shot.
If you replace Ghoul 1 with a monster with 40 AC, and you miss Ghoul 2, then you shouldn't automatically hit the monster. You could barely hit the monster if you were aiming at it, much less incidentally. If you add a Ghoul 3 in front of Ghoul 1, and you miss Ghoul 2, how do you decide which of the first two ghouls you hit? Etc.
The exceptions and rulings you'll be making if you go through with this is going to end up quite time consuming.
The cover rules are simplifications. If you start trying to make things complex, then the simplifications don't work, and it starts to get "multiple creatures grappling" levels of painful. Don't worry about it too much and just accept the -4--or pick up Improved Precise Shot at ranger 6 and never worry about it again.
Note that the "shooting into melee" penalty (removed with the Precise Shot feat) is more or less the same as the target having cover.
You can just apply the "shooting into melee" penalty for attempting to attack one target in a group of adjacent foes to simulate their moving around/shifting position.
Note that the "shooting into melee" penalty (removed with the Precise Shot feat) is more or less the same as the target having cover.
You can just apply the "shooting into melee" penalty for attempting to attack one target in a group of adjacent foes to simulate their moving around/shifting position.
They're two different situations that model different things and whose penalties stack, so I wouldn't go down that rabbit hole if I wanted to stay unconfused.