Hey team,
I searched the forums and saw similar questions were asked over the years, but without much discussion. So tossing out the below for feedback:
One of my players is playing a large species with a natural 10' reach (referred to as "R" below). Directly north of that character are two other PCs/allies ("A" and "B"), occupying a 5' space each. And, directly north of ally "A" is an enemy ("E"), at the 10' space. So in ASCII art, the battleground looks like this (4xRs depicted to show the large size of "R"):
E
AB
RR
RR
Melee player "R" wants to do a full round attack on enemy "E", using their 10' natural reach. However, ally "A" are "B" between them.
I am using the following definition of the
Because regardless of originating corner, the attack of "R" goes through a space occupied by a creature (either ally "A" or "B") before reaching the target, I believe "E" has cover. Although when we discuss other creatures complicating attacks it is often in the context of soft cover, soft cover only applies to ranged attacks. While I think there is some tension between the basic cover rule and soft cover rule, I believe that can be resolved by treating intervening creatures as providing cover against melee attacks and soft cover against ranged attacks.
Thoughts? Already resolved some place that I missed because I am a fool?
|
How do I adjudicate the rules of cover when they provide counterintuitive results?
For example, given the rules for determining cover as written, two creatures in a 5-foot-wide corridor would have cover from one another, even with no intervening obstacles.
First and foremost, the GM can usually quickly decide whether a creature has cover based on the circumstances of the encounter. Common sense rules the day!
If the GM is unsure, they can use the rules for measuring cover provided in the Core Rulebook. For these purposes, a measuring line that passes along a wall (but not a creature) is considered to pass through a square or border that provides cover.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder had a line stating that reach weapons handled cover just like ranged weapons did. Starfinder lost the lone, either on purpose or in editing.
Without that line being there
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 you follow those directions, the target has cover.
The counterargument is ""Creatures, even enemies, between you and the source of an effect provide you with cover against ranged attacks ,
However, not stating that you get cover from reach weapons doesn't mean that you don't get cover from reach weapons. If witness A says Bob and Jim are at the store, and witness B says Bob is at the store, there is no contradiction. Jim's location is simply unknown, not counterindicated.
The rules for soft cover don't superceed the rules for cover, not that the regular cover rules include a creature. Which means that the rules apply whether it's a pillar or a critter.
Pathfinder had a line stating that reach weapons handled cover just like ranged weapons did. Starfinder lost the lone, either on purpose or in editing.
Without that line being there
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 you follow those directions, the target has cover.
The counterargument is ""Creatures, even enemies, between you and the source of an effect provide you with cover against ranged attacks ,
However, not stating that you get cover from reach weapons doesn't mean that you don't get cover from reach weapons. If witness A says Bob and Jim are at the store, and witness B says Bob is at the store, there is no contradiction. Jim's location is simply unknown, not counterindicated.
The rules for soft cover don't superceed the rules for cover, not that the regular cover rules include a creature. Which means that the rules apply whether it's a pillar or a critter.
I think we agree on outcome but I disagree with the analysis. The rule for cover states that an attack that passes through a space occupied by a creature (PC/NPC/monster) has cover, that is +4 AC and +2 Reflex. This rule does not specify the type of attack, so presumably it applies to both melee and ranged. The rule for soft cover says creatures between a ranged attack's point of origin and the target provide soft cover to the target, that is + 4 AC. This rule does specify a type of attack (ranged). One speaks broadly and one speaks narrowly.
To use your analogy, the rules are:
* All Jims are at a Subway sandwich shop (an intervening creature provides cover against any attack).
* Jim Smith is at a Quiznos sandwich shop (an intervening creature provides soft cover against a specific type of attack, here ranged).
I think the rule for soft cover *must* supersede the rule for cover, otherwise you end up Jim Smith at Subway and at Quiznos simultaneously, which is not possible.
It's really only an issue if soft cover is a separate thing than cover, rather than a subset. Like one of those stores that has a subway sandwich place in it.
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.
So if soft cover and cover are completely different un related things then the cover section alone is handing you a contradiction. The creature is explicitly cover and the softcover section says they're explicitly soft cover.
Soft cover is a type of cover that doesn't allow stealth checks or provide a +2 bonus to reflex saves. That's it.