| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have searched in the FAQ, forums, and general online searches for clarification on cover rules (pp 253-4 in core rules), but have not found anything entirely satisfactory.
GM rule is of course always the final word, but my hope is to get some comprehensive guidelines to cover most cases (so that GM rule is only needed in extraordinary cases).
Areas I am seeking clarification on fall in 3 general areas:
* rules aren't self consistent,
* guidelines/ rules of thumb for partial vs. full cover, and
* various special case examples that don't necessarily make sense.
I'm making a subpost for each of these areas, so that this one isn't a giant wall of text.
Here is a link to a publicly shared google drive folder with illustrations, since I don't see how to insert pictures (and pictures are necessary to really convey the points).
First case: around a corner / down a 5' wide corridor
Example #2 of the illustration on p253 does not appear consistent with the rules text, and inspires at least one ludicrous case (of everybody gets cover in a 5' wide corridor).
I don't think either of the two cases below have cover, based on RAW and numerous posts by others, but given how often it's been asked (see below), some official clarification would be great.
* Around a corner
* Down a 5' corridor
Based on a number of forum posts, this has vexed many others, but I have not found a developer comment on the subject.
Cover-questions
5' corridor cover in plain sight
Does everyone have cover in a 5' hallway
The two minute mark of this video directly counters the rules example, but this is basics4gamers not Paizo.
Second case: soft cover for melee reach weapons
The core rules have 2 seemingly contradictory statements (both on p254, core rules):
* under Cover heading '...or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover.' (+4AC/+2Ref)
* under Soft Cover heading: '...cover against ranged attacks...' (+4AC)
This can be read various ways, but to me it seems the (explicit) soft cover section would supersede the statement in initial cover paragraph. That is to say, soft cover does not provide a reflex save bonus.
But the 'ranged' bit in the statement seems to imply that creatures do not provide ANY cover against melee weapons (specifically reach melee). So the goblin in this reach example would not get any cover from Obozaya (from Altronis) if using a reach melee weapon (e.g. a pike), while the goblin would if Obozaya used a firearm.
Is this the correct interpretation of the cover/soft cover rules?
rules of thumb
Below I list my thoughts for "rules of thumb" for whether something is partial, regular, or improved cover, based on the number of unobstructed lines that can be traced from the attacker's corner to the target's corners.
Here's a diagram illustrating the cover cases. I indicate the letter of the sub-diagram in parenthesis.
* 4 corners (A) - no cover
* 3 corners (C) - partial
* 2 corners (D) - regular
* 0 corners, but there is a gap somewhere not on a corner (F) - improved
* low cover of any kind - partial
So that is what I would rule, but's that's just me.
Is this 'in line' with the rules? Do other GMs have a different interpretation or rules of thumb (other than a corner count)?
How would you handle cases (B) and (E)?
Case B has an ambiguous corner, so whether it is regular or partial cover according to the "corner count" is unclear.
Case E has just a single corner, so one could consider making that "Improved cover" rather than just "cover".
partial soft cover?
A related point to the rules of thumb is whether there can be "partial soft cover" - where the soft cover in question blocks less than 50% of the target. It seems to me like there should be, but the rules seem to suggest otherwise, as the rules don't say anything about +2AC/+0 reflex case.
I show a case where I think partial soft cover would be warranted in this diagram. Basically, the goblin shooter has an unobstructed view to 3 of Navasi's corners, with Obozaya obstructing the 4th.
Is partial soft cover allowed under the rules, or is this a case where a person is better than a wall?
That said, I doubt the goblin would shed too many tears if he happened to hit Obozaya instead of Navasi - making me wonder whether there should really be any penalty at all. But to me, this is clearly a case of GM judgment. Versus partial soft cover, where I would like an explicit rules clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a rule of thumb based on number of corners really works for partial vs full cover, since you need to consider the 3 dimensional decription of the obstruction, not just the 2D map.
I don't think a rule of thumb based on number of corners really works for partial vs full cover, since you need to consider the 3 dimensional decription of the obstruction, not just the 2D map.
Point taken, though I do have the note about low cover. I thought about going full 8 corner (vertices of a 5' cube) but decided that would needlessly complicate the discussion.
For example, if an opponent had elevation and a low wall, I'd rule that regular cover (bottom 4 corners blocked, top 4 clear). Versus without the low wall I'd rule partial cover (back 2 bottom corners blocked by elevation, other 6 corners clear).
I'm looking for rules of thumb, so that players can have a good idea of what positioning will result in what grade of cover, without having to ask the GM for a ruling on every single tactical combination.
And thanks for the quick feedback! I haven't even finished typing my "3rd general area" of cover questions ;)
OK, on to some interesting cases where rules aren't clear, or the rules seem clear but don't make much physical sense.
Adjacent opponents: low walls & doorways
* Does low cover affect attacks of adjacent opponents (see this example)?
The opponents are equidistant and within 30' of the cover, but the corner tracing will run along the wall, potentially avoiding it entirely. Given that opportunity attacks are affected by this (if one of the combatants is ranged or a spellcaster), it seems important to get it right.
* In a similar vein, do foes on the other side of doorways get cover (like in this example)?
Altronus is facing goblin 'A' directly through a doorway. Goblin 'B' is adjacent on a diagonal. The large ksarik 'C' is like both goblins at the same time.
Similar to the low wall example, tracing from the corner ptentially results in no cover in all cases (because the wall is 'thin'). Should we treat the wall as 'thick' instead? That results in a similarly unintuitive result of lots of cover from the doorway. Also kind of borked, since if the door happened to by a half square to the right, all the cover goes away (since now Altronus can trace from the one unobstructed corner).
cover for big beasties
* With larger creatures, things can be especially weird, as shown in this gargantuan example.
I'm pretty sure RAW says use the 4 corners of the full sized creature, rather than say pick a square of the creature you'd like to target (which to me makes a bit more sense).
Raia, in her nominal position, avoids cover from Altronis (by tracing around him). But this changes with what at first glace look like trivial changes:
* if Altronis is one square to the right (A), or
* if Raia is a little closer (B).
In both cases the right 2 lines will go from green to red and cover will be earned by the gargantuan beast (when in reality the same amount of his ginormous body has been obscured).
If Raia want's to shoot the bottom gargantuan creature through the 10' wide opening, it gets cover as shown. Particularly interesting to me is that a normal or large sized creature wouldn't qualify for cover in this case.
Have I correctly interpreted RAW in these examples? Or am I missing something?
If so, do GMs often house rule these cases? (it seems pretty ludicrous to me that big creatures are getting a cover AC bonus where a smaller one wouldn't)
low cover and small/crouch/prone
First what I think is an easy one: does low cover become regular when you go prone, or are a small creature? (e.g. 3' wall for a ysoki vs a human)
Extending this a little bit, does a small creature count as 'low soft cover'? Is that even a thing? (i.e. a ysoki in between 2 humans shooting at each other)
Extending the other way, does a 5' wall low cover for a larger creature?
Finally, is crouching a thing? I don't see anything for it in the rules but it seems there are many cases in which you could turn low-ish cover into good cover without going fully prone.
Many of these examples seem more trouble than they are worth to me (in particular differentiating between creature sizes for soft cover, and crouching), but I wanted to get a sense on how GMs would typically handle these sorts of cases.
|
What's wrong with "Choose the best corner of your square, aiming at all corners of their square"?
If half+ of their square is blocked, they have cover. If less than half of their square is blocked, they have partial cover. If all of their square is blocked, they have total cover.
A⬛B
A has Total Cover from B
A
⬛B
A has no Cover from B
A
⬛
⬛B
A has Cover from B
A
⬛
⬛⬛B
A has Partial Cover from B
What's wrong with "Choose the best corner of your square, aiming at all corners of their square"?
If half+ of their square is blocked, they have cover. If less than half of their square is blocked, they have partial cover. If all of their square is blocked, they have total cover.
A⬛B
A has Total Cover from B
A
⬛BA has no Cover from B
A
⬛
⬛BA has Cover from B
A
⬛
⬛⬛BA has Partial Cover from B
From my point of view, nothing is wrong with that at all, that's exactly what I was aiming for (which I thought was clear in my post but maybe not).
* 3 clear = < 1/2 = partial* 2 clear = 1/2 or more = regular
* 0 clear = total
Wasn't sure about 1 but I was leaning toward regular as you have suggested.
What was not clear to me was whether this was how the rules were intended (or that any line blocking was considered regular cover, and partial was restricted to low cover, for example). Or how other GMs / devs viewed it.
Also if it is a person rather than a wall, whether there is such a thing as 'partial soft cover'. I feel there should be, but the rules are silent on this.
Since soft part of soft cover doesn't impact the ability to hit at all, you can take the soft/hard out of your equation.
* under Cover heading '...or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover.' (+4AC/+2Ref)
* under Soft Cover heading: '...cover against ranged attacks...' (+4AC)
1) Under soft cover is NOT an explicit statement.
A--->B
C---> Not b doesn't follow. You can TRY to infer it, but there's a real problem here that soft cover is a catagory of cover. So unless something has an explicit statement that soft cover doesn't apply to reach weapons, it applies.
Pathfinder had a rule that reach weapons resolved cover as ranged weapons. That rule got taken out of pathfinder, thats what gets you the results you see. A creaturre attacking with a melee weapon usually CAN"T attack through a creature, hence the oversight.
