Cover and Adjacency


Rules Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Must a player or creature be immediately adjacent to an object or character used for the purpose of providing cover? For example, would a creature in the open have cover from a halfling hiding thirty feet away behind a large tree stump? All the examples that I could find seem to indicate that "behind" includes the meaning of being adjacent to the object/creature providing the cover. Thank you for any clarification that you can provide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cover wrote:
Usually, the GM can quickly decide whether your target has cover. If you're uncertain or need to be more precise, draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover (or greater cover if the obstruction is extreme or the target has Taken Cover). If the line passes through a creature instead, the target has lesser cover. When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect's point of origin to the center of the creature's space.

Cover - Rules - Archives of Nethys

You do not need to be adjacent, anything in the way at all that is large enough to obstruct your view technically counts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There used to be a rule that you had to be closer to the cover than the enemy you are getting cover from, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this edition.

So if the enemy is taking cover behind a wall that they are adjacent to and you are 25 feet away, you also have cover against their attacks because of that same wall that they are cowering behind.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

There used to be a rule that you had to be closer to the cover than the enemy you are getting cover from, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this edition.

So if the enemy is taking cover behind a wall that they are adjacent to and you are 25 feet away, you also have cover against their attacks because of that same wall that they are cowering behind.

I disagree:

Core 477 Special Circumstances

"Your GM might allow you to overcome your target’s cover in some situations. If you’re right next to an arrow slit, you can shoot without penalty, but you have greater cover against someone shooting back at you from far away. Your GM might let you reduce or negate cover by leaning around a corner to shoot or the like. This usually takes an action to set up, and the GM might measure cover from an edge or corner of your space instead of your center."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, but like... what part do you disagree about? Yes, cover can be one-directional, but I still don't see anything that requires adjacency. Moreover, the quoted rule specifically mentions that it's "Special Circumstances", implying that by default this is not the case and requires some specific reason to work that way, such as an arrow slit or peaking around a corner, the latter of which may require an action to set up.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the whole default approach to cover is a move away from a strict geometrical rule (which always ends up having weird edge cases) and more of a GM eyeball thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Ascalaphus. If it looks like cover, acts like cover, and smells like cover, then it is cover.

Lantern Lodge

Aw3som3-117 wrote:
Okay, but like... what part do you disagree about? Yes, cover can be one-directional, but I still don't see anything that requires adjacency. Moreover, the quoted rule specifically mentions that it's "Special Circumstances", implying that by default this is not the case and requires some specific reason to work that way, such as an arrow slit or peaking around a corner, the latter of which may require an action to set up.

I don't disagree with the OP, but I disagree with the quoted poster's assertion that when an attacker (presumably with a ranged weapon) is behind a wall and shooting at a target some distance away from the wall, that the wall somehow provides cover to that target. The situation clearly falls under the Special Circumstances rules.

I apologize for being unclear.


Captain Zoom wrote:

I don't disagree with the OP, but I disagree with the quoted poster's assertion that when an attacker (presumably with a ranged weapon) is behind a wall and shooting at a target some distance away from the wall, that the wall somehow provides cover to that target. The situation clearly falls under the Special Circumstances rules.

I apologize for being unclear.

Ah, that makes more sense. In the specific case of a wall and a ranged attacker, it depends on whether or not the wall is actually benefitting the ranged attacker or not. Spend an action to properly utilize an arrow slit/crenellation on a castle wall? Cover for you, no cover for your opponent. Decide to shoot someone over a chest high wall with no preparation? Cover for both parties as the situation is basically equal. There aren't many situations where I could see an attacker gaining cover from a terrain piece that doesn't also grant such cover to their target without some form of action cost.


How would some of you adjudicate this situation:

Say I use Interact to flip a table on it's side, specifically to hide behind.

Would I instantly have normal Cover, or would I need to Take Cover to benefit from it? Also, if we're on a map, would I need to Stride up to it?

Grand Lodge

SaveVersus wrote:

How would some of you adjudicate this situation:

Say I use Interact to flip a table on it's side, specifically to hide behind.

Would I instantly have normal Cover, or would I need to Take Cover to benefit from it? Also, if we're on a map, would I need to Stride up to it?

You need to be adjacent to it to flip it - unless you use some magic means to flip it over. So either you start next to the table or you need to stride towards it.

Beyond that it really depends on a case by case basis. A larger table might be more difficult to flip but gives better cover.

My thought process

a) does it make sense
b) give the benefit of doubt in grey area situations
c) watch out for repeat / cheese that might invalidate b)

I'm also happy to take input from the player after the game if he feels I did it wrong - but to have a smooth game I make a decision and move on.

Horizon Hunters

SaveVersus wrote:

How would some of you adjudicate this situation:

Say I use Interact to flip a table on it's side, specifically to hide behind.

Would I instantly have normal Cover, or would I need to Take Cover to benefit from it? Also, if we're on a map, would I need to Stride up to it?

Yes you need to be adjacent to something to interact with it.

If you wanted to hide behind a table to get cover, here's how I would deal with it:

Interact action to flip the table.
The table grants Standard cover while standing behind it.
If you Take Cover, you have Greater Cover.
If you wanted to fire from behind the table, your enemy would also have cover. If you want to negate that you would need to take an action to peek out, then fire.
If you attack after Taking Cover, you would then lose greater cover due to cover rules, and thus have to take cover again if you want Greater Cover.


Thanks for the replies.

Mainly I was looking to see if someone could benefit from cover without taking the Take Cover action. The rules seem a little loose by design, so I was trying to see where people fell between it making sense and people exploiting it.


Yes, you can get cover without having to use the Take Cover action. The rules for what locations provide cover from what other locations and creatures can get a bit complex and usually require GM to simply make a ruling most of the time. They're more like guidelines.

And the primary purpose of the Take Cover action is to increase the level of cover that you would already get automatically from being in your current location.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SaveVersus wrote:

How would some of you adjudicate this situation:

Say I use Interact to flip a table on it's side, specifically to hide behind.

Would I instantly have normal Cover, or would I need to Take Cover to benefit from it? Also, if we're on a map, would I need to Stride up to it?

If I was your GM:

Simply having the table between you and an enemy would provide lesser cover (and that is if the enemy can actually reach you across the table).

If you flip it on end (an interact action), then that would cause it to provide standard cover without any further action from you. Though it goes the other way too. That enemy would have standard cover from you also.

If you don't flip the table on end, you can still take cover behind (or under) the table to improve the lesser cover that it provides up to standard cover.

If you do flip the table on end, then you can spend another action to Take Cover behind it and increase it up to greater cover.


Thanks for the replies.

I think the biggest snag for me while reading the section, Take Cover either gives you Cover if you didn't have it, or Greater Cover if you did.

So it seems what they meant to convey in the first sense - and I could be wrong here - is situations where two opponents could have cover, but are opposed in such a way that it's not really doing much.

For example, say a table was flipped on its side, but two opponents are opposite the thin edges instead of the flat of the table.
X -- X instead of X | X

In this case, could a player use the Take Cover action in order to get normal cover?


There is no way to make a complete listing of all of the possibilities of circumstances that will work for cover. This is a tabletop RPG. The possibilities are endless. All we have is the requirement list 'You are benefiting from cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.'

So you would have to ask your GM if the table being placed in that position would count as a feature that allows you to take cover or if your current square is a location that automatically grants you some form of cover. If so, then you can use Take Cover to increase the amount of cover you have.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Cover and Adjacency All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.