Click bait aside, question is can you use a grappled person to utilize the Take Cover action.
Example: My Monk has Flurry of Maneuvers, I stride up to Fred the Hobgoblin and Flurry, first to grapple then to strike. Third action can I take the Take Cover action to boost my AC to those who would target me behind poor Fred?
The description of Take Cover is:
You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.
So you want to use an enemy's body (living or otherwise) as a tower shield?
I actually don't immediately see anything preventing it. I thought there was something about not being able to use Take Cover when the lesser cover is provided by a creature because the creatures move around too much during combat even when they aren't changing their grid location. But I can't find it currently.
In the interest of both realism and balance, I would also have the Take Cover bonus end if the enemy escapes your grapple. If they don't move and cause you to lose cover entirely, then it would still downgrade to lesser cover.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A tower shield requires you wield it and raise shield to take cover behind it.
Tower Shield, Core Rulebook [pg. 277]"AC Bonus +2 (+4 2)"
"2 Getting the higher bonus for a tower shield requires using the Take Cover action while the shield is raised."
A medium foe is bulkier and lacks convenient straps/grips so I don't see being able to "raise shield" with it. "If cover is especially light, typically when it's provided by a creature, you have lesser cover, which grants a +1 circumstance bonus to AC." Given this line in the rules, I'd rule that you could go from lesser cover to standard cover with a Take Cover action.
Take Cover: "If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead)." Since a creature normally gives lesser, you'd go to the "Otherwise" sentence as you don't start with standard cover.
Grappled wouldn't be a factor, as the grappler doesn't exert much control over the opponent at that point. Maybe if you'd Restrained them (or of course had some unusual ability to control a grappled foe.)
You still might be able to use an appropriately sized adjacent opponent for a standard Take Cover, grappled or not. The arguments look decent that bumping up the cover a notch would be warranted. It fits the mechanics, balance, and the genre/narrative IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From strict rules, you can Take Cover behind anything. The descriptive text states that you "press yourself against" what gives you Cover, so I'd would not allow it unless you can get very close to the enemy. But I think Grapple qualifies quite nicely.
Still, it's highly unusual, and as Breithauptclan said if the creature moves it'd break the Cover. Also, if it gets out of the Grapple and as such prevents you to "press yourself against" it, I'd rule that it also breaks Cover.
I also think it's a nice idea. Situational and not overpowered, this is the kind of things I tend to allow easily as a GM.
I agree it's situational at best. I was just really wondering if you could take advantage of the mechanic if only at a reduced bonus. We've all seen movies where a character uses a hostage or something similar as cover. And it seemed by rules if given the right situation it could be possible in game.
Thanks for all the input guys!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are talking rule of cool, you could also have critical failures hit your human shield instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are talking rule of cool, you could also have critical failures hit your human shield instead.
If you think it'd be just as cool if they did that to your PCs.
Or it didn't open up a can of worms by having PCs intentionally attack each other when their MAP was high. :-P
If we are talking rule of cool, you could also have critical failures hit your human shield instead.If you think it'd be just as cool if they did that to your PCs.
Or it didn't open up a can of worms by having PCs intentionally attack each other when their MAP was high. :-P
I think it would be great if it was used against a PC. But I didn't think about using it to counter MAP.
Usually same size creatures only provide lesser cover, and you need at least cover to " take cover" I think.
The requirement line lists 'cover', and that would normally be interpreted to mean standard cover and not allowing lesser cover to qualify.
But then there is this line in the body of the rules.
Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead)
So apparently lesser cover still qualifies as 'cover' for meeting the requirement line.
That could also be interpreted as handling the case where you are taking cover while prone. Except that Prone says that when you Take Cover while prone that you get greater cover benefits. So in this ruling the two don't match.
I think it would be great if it was used against a PC. But I didn't think about using it to counter MAP.
Possibly "If you crit-fail, then reroll the attack against the human shield"?
"Look. It's very important to me that this attack hit someone."
I don't think I'd allow for any rules for a critical failure to hit the other target, because it's opening up for abuse. There might be some ways to stop that from happening...but the easiest is to not create the rule that creates the problem in the first place.
As for taking cover...I think that's already supported by the rules. You should be able to have lesser cover to begin with, or at least I say you do from grappling the opponent. Another action to turn that into standard cover seems reasonable, although I would rule if they move the effect ends.
Giving more thought to the idea of using someone else to take an attack...I might get behind a feat that allowed you, as a reaction, to interpose someone between you and an attack. Some sort of check would need to be made against the person you're attempting to use, not sure what exactly. And then the attack would go against their AC. No attack rerolls or anything like that. That way, 3rd action attacks have their MAP applied. I think this isn't likely to be able to be abused by the PCs trying to make 3rd action attacks be drastically more successful because it would be worse than targeting them in the first place.
The idea is that the enemy targets you, and you're redirecting their attack against their ally.
I think there is a rogue feat that does that, actually.
I think there is a rogue feat that does that, actually.
You are probably thinking of Sidestep. Which is similar and would make a good base for balancing a new feat with.
I think there is a rogue feat that does that, actually.You are probably thinking of Sidestep. Which is similar and would make a good base for balancing a new feat with.
Huh. By my read, there's nothign stopping you from sidestepping a foe into attacking themselves... unless creatures are not in reach of themselves?
I think there is a rogue feat that does that, actually.You are probably thinking of Sidestep. Which is similar and would make a good base for balancing a new feat with.
Maybe you roll an athletics check or an attack roll to position the "cover" person between you and the attacker. So you would check to see if you meet or exceed the incoming attack with your check. If your check does, then the attack roll misses you, but and if exceeds the "cover" person's AC then they take the damage and not you.
Maybe you roll an athletics check or an attack roll to position the "cover" person between you and the attacker. So you would check to see if you meet or exceed the incoming attack with your check. If your check does, then the attack roll misses you, but and if exceeds the "cover" person's AC then they take the damage and not you.I think there is a rogue feat that does that, actually.You are probably thinking of Sidestep. Which is similar and would make a good base for balancing a new feat with.
Letting people use athletics checks in place of AC? That could get ugly.
Letting people use athletics checks in place of AC? That could get ugly.Maybe you roll an athletics check or an attack roll to position the "cover" person between you and the attacker. So you would check to see if you meet or exceed the incoming attack with your check. If your check does, then the attack roll misses you, but and if exceeds the "cover" person's AC then they take the damage and not you.I think there is a rogue feat that does that, actually.You are probably thinking of Sidestep. Which is similar and would make a good base for balancing a new feat with.
Not quite, letting people redirect the attack by making an athletics check against the enemies attack roll. It's s being done as a reaction which means you're limited on how frequently you can do it, and requires you to already be adjacent to that enemy (possibly requiring grappling or something). Further, if you fail to redirect the attack, it would still need to beat your AC to harm you. And if you succeed in the redirect, it would still go against the enemy's AC.
So the athletics check is just to see if the target gets changed.
Looking at some quick character builds for reference, a character optimized for an athletics check might have an athletics modifier +3 above their first attack roll. Which in this system is pretty good. But on average, on level enemies have higher attack bonuses than PC characters. So since your doing a check against their attack roll, I think it's not going to wind up terribly imbalanced and can only be done as a reaction.
Then your only other option is going to be something that works like Sidestep, which is pretty dissatisfying considering this action should be more active IMO.
And while you could have it merely be an athletics checks against the enemy you want to interpose, if leaves the attacking enemy no choice.
Perhaps that would be acceptable if you made it so the attacking enemy could choose to deal no damage. Of course then you're just trading a reaction to negate their attack, without ever making a roll against them.
So...it's rather complicated in my opinion and unsatisfying without an opposing roll.
that would break the paradigm of "no oppossed rolls" of pf2 though.
So does Initiative. *shrug*