| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A1) Using a technicality like that feels like not playing the game in good faith. No, I wouldn't let you use Take Cover using a barrier that could not plausibly provide any protection to attacks using the line of effect rules.
Using Take Cover to get standard cover is for some small object or terrain feature that is between the character and the direction of attack, but the object isn't large enough to provide cover normally. At that point the character could use Take Cover to position themselves better to cause the small object to provide standard cover.
Also see the Adjudicating Take Cover addendum in the Gamemastery Guide.
A2) The reason that Take Cover has 'or are prone' in the requirements is because the Prone condition says that you can use Take Cover to get benefits of cover against ranged attacks.
Being prone and using Take Cover is not going to provide any benefits against melee attacks. See the answer to question #1 for why.
A3) This I am a lot more uncertain on. I can see this one being ruled either way. Or even on a case-by-case basis, such as allowing the bonus to reflex save against a cone effect because it is directional, but not allowing it against a burst effect because it is not.
I can also see ruling that it only provides the bonus to AC because that is all that the Tower Shield item says that it does. You have to use the action and it names Take Cover even though you don't actually meet the requirements to use Take Cover. So you get the bonus to AC because the item says that you do, but you don't get any other benefits of the Take Cover action because you don't actually qualify to use the action to get them.
A4)
Scenario 1 feels like a player trying to use a rules technicality to get a game benefit - a typical munchkin behavior. So that one I am very confident in my ruling being rather universal and intended.
Scenario 2 seems more like a player getting confused because of how the rules are split across multiple conditions. But here I am also confident that with all of the rules being brought together, the ruling is correct.
Scenario 3 I expect table variation. I'm not sure that there is a 'right' answer to that one.
|
Cover is always relative. There's no way that a wall behind a person is going to provide cover relative to someone in front of said person.
1.) I would not allow that player to get standard cover relative to the people in front of them.
2.) Two things: the +4 vs ranged really works out to a +2 because gaining greater cover vs ranged doesn't negate the off-guard penalty of -2.
Second, absolutely not. Again, cover is relative. It doesn't matter how low to the ground you get, when the opponent is almost directly above you.
3.) They're both circumstance bonuses to AC, so only the highest applies.
4-1.) You might find some GMs that accept that degree of wiggle room, but I certainly don't think it's intended, and I doubt most would accept that reasoning.
4-2.) Definitely RAW. Prone says you can take cover vs ranged attacks, not take cover in general.
4-3.) Definitely RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, also regarding question #3, Take Cover behind your Tower Shield isn't going to give any bonuses to stealth checks to avoid detection because it is one of those cases where your position is obvious. Same as various spells that give concealment for the miss chance but don't allow for stealth skills.
3.) They're both circumstance bonuses to AC, so only the highest applies.
4-3.) Definitely RAW.
I would agree with that when only considering the AC bonus. I am curious how you rule considering the bonus to Reflex saves, and stealth skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example 1) A character is in a room with his back to the wall, surrounded by thugs. Player says, I am by a feature that can provide cover (tech he is right, it can provide cover to someone on the other side of the wall), so that allows him to take cover. And the take cover action states, if he doesn't have standard cover, then he gains it "Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead)".
Question 1) As a dm, would you allow him to have the standard cover +2 bonus to ac verse the thugs because he was "hugging" the flat wall for cover?
The answer is no. Even if you use the Take Cover action if this cover isn't between the line of effect of you and your enemy this cover doesn't protect you from this enemy:
...
Cover is relative, so you might simultaneously have cover against one creature and not another. Cover applies only if your path to the target is partially blocked. If a creature is entirely behind a wall or the like, you don't have line of effect and typically can't target it at all.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.
Example 2) A player is on the ground, surrounded by thugs. He uses the take cover action to try and get standard cover (+2) vs the thugs. Under take cover action, it does say you can take cover while prone. Under prone condition it does list you can gain greater cover vs ranged attacks, but nothing else.
Question 2) As a DM would you allow the player to gain a +4 bonus to ranged and +2 vs melee? If no to the previous, would you allow him to perhaps just gain standard cover using the take cover action because the ability lists prone as a possible requirement fulfilment?
RAW: You get cover from ranged attack even if this attacks comes from a creature in melee range. This +2 in melee doesn't exist the Prone condition doesn't gives any cover by default it just allows to get great cover from Ranged attacks directly from 0 while you are Prone:
You're lying on the ground. You are flat-footed and take a –2 circumstance penalty to attack rolls. The only move actions you can use while you're prone are Crawl and Stand. Standing up ends the prone condition. You can Take Cover while prone to hunker down and gain greater cover against ranged attacks, even if you don't have an object to get behind, gaining a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks (but you remain flat-footed).
RAI: I also don't allow get this cover benefits from ranged attacks at melee range (reach not included) to get greater cover benefits.
Example 3) A player has a tower shield; it says he can use the take cover action for +4 ac. Player says he also gains the bonus to reflex saves (and other stuff) because he took the take cover action while holding the tower shield and he is also benefiting from standard cover because there is no actual cover nearby. That the +4 isn't a replacement effect, that it's an additional affect.
Question 3) As a dm would you give him the full standard cover benefit or just the +4 AC as called for under shields.
Circumstance Bonus doesn't stack only greater is valid. So only great cover is valid here (including the reflex bonus because Tower Shield doesn't say thats it's AC only). Forget the rest.
Question 4) For each of the above, do you believe how you ruled is how the rules are intended to be played or just how you would DM it. Some dm's are more generous than others while others are by the book (which is totally fine).
In the past I was more adept to house-ruling but despite the PF2 is a pretty easier system to change/create your own rules without do a great damage to the game balance over the time but I noticed that put too many house-rules will breaking the "legal security" of the system making it difficult to players to predicts their builds and risking create even more strange interactions with other rules and resources.
Today I abandoned most of my homebrew and I usually just house-rule the scenario specific situations or things that if I do fully RAW will make strange and too senseless gameplay logic (like giving great cover vs a creature doing a ranged Strike in the adjacent square). So outside this I usually avoid homebrews even if I don't completely agree with a rule or other.
I would agree with that when only considering the AC bonus. I am curious how you rule considering the bonus to Reflex saves, and stealth skills.3.) They're both circumstance bonuses to AC, so only the highest applies.
4-3.) Definitely RAW.
About stealth skills as you said you can't hide behind a shied that you are rising because your position is obvious but a creature behind you can!
|
|
I would agree with that when only considering the AC bonus. I am curious how you rule considering the bonus to Reflex saves, and stealth skills.3.) They're both circumstance bonuses to AC, so only the highest applies.
4-3.) Definitely RAW.
Gains the bonus to Reflex as per normal from cover.
No benefit to stealth as the location is obvious. They're behind the big ol' shield.
Taking Cover behind your Tower Shield only increases AC to +4. It's not the normal rule for cover, it's the Shield rule about Tower Shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems I disagree with the general consensus.
1) yes, I would (often) allow this. As far as I'm concerned the language is clear, and notably they are not actually gaining cover in this scenario. Rather, they are gaining the benefits of cover, which is an important distinction with regards to Hide and similar.
Why do I think this is reasonable? Flavor wise, I see it as using the terrain feature as a sort of static shield, and getting a similar defensive bonus as using a shield grants. Action economy is similar to using a shield. And also I always have discretion to say whether a feature is usable for the Take Cover action, so if for example facing a squad of archers with a wall directly behind you relative to the archers I can say there's no way the wall is helping. In melee the wall is cutting off several angles of attack even if your opponent is directly in front of you (e.g. a swing from above that would normally hit the top of your head instead hits the wall first, or similar for a swing into your side), so I'm willing to allow it there.
2) yes, I would allow this, although it's a net +2/+0 since off guard also applies. The text for Take Cover does not reference the text of the Prone condition; it merely lists being prone as one of three options for being able to use Take Cover and then details the benefits of the Take Cover action without providing any exceptions in the case of qualifying for the action by being prone. The text for the Prone condition grants extra benefits against ranged attacks when you use Take Cover while prone; it does not detail any limits on other benefits of the Take Cover action. Flavor-wise, similar reasoning as above--being prone makes it easier to attack you, thus off guard, but if you actively use the ground to your advantage you can mitigate that disadvantage.
(I actually like that this exists as partial counterplay against prone. In general I don't like how binary the prone condition is in relation to Kip Up or Legendary Nimble Crawl--you go from only being able to end the condition with an action that triggers many reactions to virtually ignoring the condition.)
3) No. Unlike the previous cases, the rule for using Take Cover with a Tower Shield is a specific exception that grants a specific benefit when using the action. That benefit replaces the normal benefits of the Take Cover action. If the player with the Tower Shield also meets the conditions for Take Cover against some creatures then I'd also give them the (non-overlapping) normal benefits against those creatures.
4) For 1&2 I'm not sure what was intended, but I am confident that this is what is written. Since I can also see flavor justification and I don't think it's overpowered when compared with similar options, I'm willing to go with the RAW. Notably, the guidelines in the Gamemastery Guide appear to be focused on the greater cover benefit of the Take Cover action so I don't find them valuable for adjudicating these cases.
For 3, I do think this is both intended and how the rules are written.
Circumstance Bonus doesn't stack only greater is valid. So only great cover is valid here (including the reflex bonus because Tower Shield doesn't say thats it's AC only). Forget the rest.
Hey YuriP, I did have a question on your thoughts on exactly what you ment? Are you saying when they lift the tower shield you would give the player greater cover, +4 ac reflex and stealth?
Under shield rule it says this, not sure if this affect anything for you because it doesn't technically say AC only. And I can see how a person could see +4 is the same as greater cover, so reflex could/should come along with it.
"When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4."
Thanks!
In a post bellow I pointed that it's not valid to stealth actions.
But let's do a mental exercise and try to interpret that Hide action only gives you the hidden but you cannot use it to sneak because your position is obvious and visible due the big door that you are holding.
For other side the Tower/Fortress Shield isn't a solid snake's cardboard box. It's not omnidirectional to allow you to use it to hide from all directions and the system don't consider token's rotation (you can use the Tower/Fortress Shield to get cover even when flanked because you are able to rotate it). So become hide behind your own shield doesn't looks right IMO because we don't have a clear position in the map to know the line of sight that it blocks so even to use the hidden part with it doesn't look right.
So no I won't allow the Tower Shield owner to use it as a cover to use any Stealth actions.
But other characters can take cover from you when you are Rising a Tower/Fortress Shield because you are providing a standard cover to them and you giving a clear position to calculate the line of sight of your enemies making your allies position not obvious to enemies:
...
When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4. This lasts until the shield is no longer raised. If you would normally provide lesser cover against an attack, having your tower shield raised provides standard cover against it (and other creatures can Take Cover as normal using the cover from your shield).
...
So you can use a creature that has a Tower Shield risen to Hide behind it and then to Sneak away but this creature cannot use its own shield to Hide.
Taking Cover behind your Tower Shield only increases AC to +4. It's not the normal rule for cover, it's the Shield rule about Tower Shield.
There's no ruling restricting the Tower Shield in this way. The Shields rules only points that "you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4" not that "you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4 only". The Subordinated Actions rules put this clear:
An action might allow you to use a simpler action—usually one of the Basic Actions on page 469—in a different circumstance or with different effects. This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but is modified in any ways listed in the larger action. For example, an activity that tells you to Stride up to half your Speed alters the normal distance you can move in a Stride. The Stride would still have the move trait, would still trigger reactions that occur based on movement, and so on. The subordinate action doesn’t gain any of the traits of the larger action unless specified. The action that allows you to use a subordinate action doesn’t require you to spend more actions or reactions to do so; that cost is already factored in.
So if the main action don't explicitly remove an effect from the Subordinated Action the effect still valid.
1) yes, I would (often) allow this. As far as I'm concerned the language is clear, and notably they are not actually gaining cover in this scenario. Rather, they are gaining the benefits of cover, which is an important distinction with regards to Hide and similar.
Why do I think this is reasonable? Flavor wise, I see it as using the terrain feature as a sort of static shield, and getting a similar defensive bonus as using a shield grants. Action economy is similar to using a shield. And also I always have discretion to say whether a feature is usable for the Take Cover action, so if for example facing a squad of archers with a wall directly behind you relative to the archers I can say there's no way the wall is helping. In melee the wall is cutting off several angles of attack even if your opponent is directly in front of you (e.g. a swing from above that would normally hit the top of your head instead hits the wall first, or similar for a swing into your side), so I'm willing to allow it there.
You logic makes sense but not to the rules point. I understand that in a real battle fight against the wall will difficult even melee Strikes but it's not how the game rules. If we put the things in this way why we would use a shield if we always can use a new object or creature to get cover?
Anyway the cover rules are clear when they saying that cover is relative to the line of effect/sight between you and the target. Tower/Fortress Shield are exception to this because you can control de cover position freely.
There's no ruling restricting the Tower Shield in this way. The Shields rules only points that "you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4" not that "you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4 only". The Subordinated Actions rules put this clear:
It's not a subordinate action.
Prone says: "You can Take Cover while prone to hunker down and gain greater cover against ranged attacks, even if you don't have an object to get behind, gaining a +4 circumstance bonus to AC against ranged attacks (but you remain flat-footed)."
So, I think your reading falls flat (or prone).
So why to use Take Cover instead of just "you can use another action to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4"?
This isn't like Sustain to increase an aura size (where all Sustain traits and effects are valid and not just an whatever action tha only gets the described effect of increase the aura size)?
So why to use Take Cover instead of just "you can use another action to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4"?
I partially agree with you. I think it's to avoid repeating the conditions to get out of "Take Cover" and because it can trigger some other actions/reactions/free actions. Also because Take Cover is evocative: You understand immediately what's this action. It's for example because of how evocative it is that they don't have to say that you can take this special Take Cover action without meeting the prerequisites: Because we all understand that this Take Cover action uses your Shield as "cover".
So if this is the logic when they change Bless to use sustain it looses the concentration trait (and any other effects in it) because the Bless only calls it to increase the aura?
Blessings from beyond help your companions strike true. You and your allies gain a +1 status bonus to attack rolls while within the emanation. Once per turn, starting the turn after you cast bless, you can use a single action, which has the concentrate trait, to increase the emanation's radius by 5 feet. Bless can counteract bane.
Blessings from beyond help your companions strike true. You and your allies gain a +1 status bonus to attack rolls while within the emanation. Once per round on subsequent turns, you can Sustain the spell to increase the emanation's radius by 10 feet. Bless can counteract Bane.
So if this is the logic when they change Bless to use sustain it looses the concentration trait (and any other effects in it) because the Bless only calls it to increase the aura?
I think you're trying to play devil's advocate and it just doesn't work.
And Bless is another good example: You can't Sustain Bless above its one minute duration because the Sustain Action you use to increase the emanation's radius only does that and not the other effects of Sustain a Spell.
Now, I agree that using an action and replacing "part" of it that way is definitely not clear by RAW. It's only usable by RAI and even in that case it raises potential issues. But I think most tables will end up with the same rulings for Bless, Taking Cover while Prone and as such similar ruling should be used for Taking Cover with a Tower Shield.
You logic makes sense but not to the rules point. I understand that in a real battle fight against the wall will difficult even melee Strikes but it's not how the game rules. If we put the things in this way why we would use a shield if we always can use a new object or creature to get cover?
As noted, I don't agree this goes against how the game rules are written. If Take Cover while Prone were only meant to give the benefits mentioned in the Prone condition, it could have been written the same way as the Tower Shield where the Take Cover action need not mention Prone at all.
Why use a shield? Partly because you can't always be next to something, and especially you can't always be next to something that can give cover. Being next to a creature would generally not qualify since creatures do not generally give standard cover (though arguably you could use Take Cover to upgrade lesser cover from a creature to standard cover as long as you would be benefitting from lesser cover). Partly because a shield can also shield block to absorb damage, which is never an option with Take Cover. And partly because it's easier to mitigate/eliminate the action cost of Raise a Shield than to mitigate the action cost of Take Cover.
Anyway the cover rules are clear when they saying that cover is relative to the line of effect/sight between you and the target. Tower/Fortress Shield are exception to this because you can control de cover position freely.
While I agree, I don't see how this affects my interpretation. Remember, Take Cover doesn't actually give you cover if you wouldn't already have it. Rather it gives you the benefits of cover despite not having cover--in other words, it explicitly does not need you to have something between you and the attacker to gain the lesser benefit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway the cover rules are clear when they saying that cover is relative to the line of effect/sight between you and the target. Tower/Fortress Shield are exception to this because you can control de cover position freely.While I agree, I don't see how this affects my interpretation. Remember, Take Cover doesn't actually give you cover if you wouldn't already have it. Rather it gives you the benefits of cover despite not having cover--in other words, it explicitly does not need you to have something between you and the attacker to gain the lesser benefit.
That doesn't sound like playing the game in good faith. It feels like an overly literal and pedantic reading of the rules looking for a loophole to exploit.
And it doesn't match up with the Adjudicating Take Cover guidelines than I mentioned above. Those guidelines do mention needing an object to be "behind".
That doesn't sound like playing the game in good faith. It feels like an overly literal and pedantic reading of the rules looking for a loophole to exploit.
And it doesn't match up with the Adjudicating Take Cover guidelines than I mentioned above. Those guidelines do mention needing an object to be "behind".
Setting aside the subjective and loaded question of "good faith" for a moment (seriously, what am I supposed to say? I can assert that I am indeed arguing in good faith, but if you don't believe that was already the case why would you believe my direct assertion?) let's look closely at those guidelines.
"You’ll often need to determine whether someone can
Take Cover. They usually just need a large enough object
to hide behind. Imagine the character crouching, and
picture whether the object could almost entirely cover up
their silhouette. Taking Cover might also require them to
Drop Prone, such as if they want to take cover under a
table. Most of the time, you can let them combine these
instead of using two separate actions."
Take Cover can be used in three scenarios. One is a binary condition that needs no adjudication (you are prone). One is a mostly binary condition that needs very little adjudication (you have cover), and when adjudication is needed it's about whether or not there is cover in the first place, not about whether the Take Cover action could be used in the case of cover existing. So this guidance seems to exist mainly for the third scenario (you are near a feature that allows you to take cover).
If I am near a feature that is large enough to almost entirely cover my silhouette if I crouch--e.g. a boulder, a crate, an overturned table--why would I not already have cover from that feature? The most obvious answer seems to be that the feature in question must not be positioned between me and the potential attacker. So I don't read this guidance as implying that I need to actually be behind an object, just that I'm near enough to an object that could cover me if I were behind it. A possible alternative is that I'm underestimating how big something needs to be before it provides cover.
I went looking through GMC for further clarification on what does or doesn't constitute cover. Here are the examples I found in the section on terrain:
---Not cover but can be used to Take Cover: small trees, light undergrowth (this also counts as difficult terrain)
---Cover: tree canopy, large trees (defined as taking up an entire 5' square or more), heavy undergrowth (this also counts as greater difficult terrain; one specific example was given of heavy undergrowth: "fields of certain crops, like corn"), hedges (described as 2' to 5' tall and occupying a row of squares, and also counting as greater difficult terrain)
Mostly these are too vague to be helpful. What exactly constitutes "light undergrowth"? I'm picturing low shrubs or thick grasses/weeds in the vicinity of 1'-2' tall, too short to fully cover a crouching person even though they're explicitly usable for the Take Cover action. Is my mental image wrong? The hedge example seems to support this further--a 2' tall hedge isn't going to "almost entirely cover up" a crouching person yet that's already enough to provide cover with no action taken. On the other hand, trees needing to take up an entire square before granting cover provides some doubt, as I feel like a 2' wide tree should be granting cover with no extra actions but doesn't necessarily occupy a 5' square space. But then maybe that's around the threshold where it should occupy that space since that's around the total width of a typical adult human (average shoulder width of adult men is 16"-17", broad shoulders are 21"+, then add arms).
So I'm not sure, but I'm still leaning towards my initial feeling that anything big enough to cover up a crouching person would generally provide cover without the Take Cover action.
To be clear, I'm not looking for loopholes to exploit. I'm trying to form my best understanding of both the rules as written and of the rules as intended. Once I know what the rules do and don't say, and have a feel for what I think the designers wanted to say, then I can do a better job of deciding how to adjudicate ambiguous cases as well as where I think the rules might say something that they shouldn't say. At the moment I'm mainly focused on figuring out exactly what the rules around cover do and don't say, with a secondary focus on figuring out what the designers intended to say.
edit: added clarifying language about why I was looking at examples of cover. Also corrected my idea of light undergrowth as being 1 to 2 feet tall, not 1 to 2 inches tall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this analysis is in how the whole thing is determined.
It doesnt matter if you can imagine a way in which certain positioning could result in cover. It only matters it there is some obstruction from center to center.
The problem with this analysis is in how the whole thing is determined.
It doesnt matter if you can imagine a way in which certain positioning could result in cover. It only matters it there is some obstruction from center to center.
While this is true, we need to remember that most of the cover rules rely on GM adjudication.
Like, imagine you have a tennis court, but the net is a brick wall about 3 feet tall (which is more or less the height of an official tennis net).
If you have a dude on either extreme of the court, center to center would say they have cover from each other because the line passes through this wall, but I personally wouldn't give cover to either: you're too far away and the wall is far too short for that.
But if one of them was right next to the wall? Then sure, because then the wall would be covering nearly half of the silhouette. That's Cover right there. And if they take an action to Take Cover behind it? Even better.
Another easy example would be like, a bunker overlooking a beach. Strict center-to-center would mean the dude on the bare beach has cover from soldiers inside the bunker and vice-versa, when we know that doesn't make a ton of sense.
Other games include caveats of adjacency and relative height to determine cover but I think PF's approach of "GM adjudicates, center-to-center if it's unclear" works fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While this is true, we need to remember that most of the cover rules rely on GM adjudication.
To me, this is pretty much the whole of the discussion. If I say "I spend an action to press against the wall and Take Cover," and my GM says "Absolutely not. What are you talking about?" then that's really it. Judging from the responses to the OP, it seems that a large majority of GMs would rule that way.
However, if you're the GM, feel free to Calvinball the rules - it is your game after all. If your players are enjoying that, then who's to stop you?
Thank you in advance for looking at this post. Got a couple questions for everyone. I did browse around and found some answers, but not really a solid one that everyone will accept. This is basically about take cover action and where it gives cover. I can probably throw out more example, but don't want to take all your time.
Example 1) A character is in a room with his back to the wall, surrounded by thugs. Player says, I am by a feature that can provide cover (tech he is right, it can provide cover to someone on the other side of the wall), so that allows him to take cover. And the take cover action states, if he doesn't have standard cover, then he gains it "Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead)".
Question 1) As a dm, would you allow him to have the standard cover +2 bonus to ac verse the thugs because he was "hugging" the flat wall for cover?
i have to ask, if that player saw a ogre try to do this right in front of them would they expect to have a harder time hitting it with a melee attack? Or an easier time since the ogre would have to restrict its normal assumed defensive movements to hug a wall?
This also extends to the prone question relating to melee attacks. A wall or the floor is reducing the number of directions you can use to evade attacks its also reducing the number of directions attacks can come from. Attacks not coming from the other side of the wall or floor have to go through the pc to hit the wall or floor so what kind of cover could they provide the pc?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing about Take Cover and things being between you and the attacker. It is, I think, uncontested that you can gain Greater Cover against ranged attacks by using Take Cover when prone. In this scenario, what is it that's between you and the ranged attacker? Nothing! The rules clearly, explicitly, grant this bonus when you "don't have an object to get behind". So, where is the +4 bonus (+2 net) coming from?
To me, it appears that the Take Cover action is meant to represent more than simply putting some physical thing between you and an attacker. Rather it represents putting extra effort into being harder to hit based on the use of some sort of environmental feature (edit: and flat ground qualifies as an appropriate feature if you're lying on it). And from the explicit language in the prone scenario, that use does not require the environmental feature to be or end up between you and the attacker. Nor is it as simple as orienting yourself to be as small a target as possible, because you are getting the benefit against any and all ranged attacks, even if those attacks are coming at you from all different angles as well as from straight above you.
That's the precedent I extrapolate from when I say that Take Cover should (RAW) give a prone character some protection against melee attacks (but less than against ranged), and that it should give a character pressed up against a wall protection from attacks even when the wall isn't in the way. Is this RAI? I don't know. Is the prone vs. ranged example RAI? It certainly seems to be. And if that's RAI, then where's the difference between that and the other scenarios?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of got fed up with arguing about the rules and told my players(Not Seravix) that if they got a designer to clarify I'd change my ruling.
LOL. Considering that the game designers deliberately lob that right back at you as the GM.
If you’re ever uncertain how to apply a rule, the GM decides.
But I can understand the frustration.
That is why even though I am a pretty decent rules lawyer, I don't ever argue rules with a GM that I am playing under. It doesn't lead to fun and entertainment.
snip
Do you take any sort of realism into account here or is it just RAW says (by a very loose interpretation) one can so thus it's okay? Could a Huge Giant Take Cover behind a 2 foot high wall, or do we need to invoke GM interpretation here? Can I strap a board to my back and Take Cover instead of using a shield and thus keep my hands free? At what point in three-dimensional space should a ranged attacker firing against a prone target Taking Cover have to contend with the bonus - are we talking a 45 degree angle here or directly above only?
Like, at some point, the GM needs to step in and adjudicate. You can certainly say "Well, RAW says I can pretty much always Take Cover," but that's only one (in my opinion, very charitable) reading. I wouldn't say it unbalances the game, but it does change how encounters are handled and even how they're designed in APs. I mean, look at Abomination Vaults. Why ever buy a shield for non-Shield Blocking classes? You're surrounded by walls in 5-foot hallways.
It seems like it makes way more problems than it solves to read the rules in this way.
|
|
I would agree with that when only considering the AC bonus. I am curious how you rule considering the bonus to Reflex saves, and stealth skills.3.) They're both circumstance bonuses to AC, so only the highest applies.
4-3.) Definitely RAW.Gains the bonus to Reflex as per normal from cover.
No benefit to stealth as the location is obvious. They're behind the big ol' shield.Hey Ectar, since your giving him cover, what type of cover would you be giving him? What bonus to reflex would you give him for holding up his tower shield? He is gaining a +4 bonus to AC for taking cover while holding up his tower shield, would you treat the +4 as greater cover and give him +4 to reflexes as well?
"When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4."
Thanks
mmmm, I think I've actually changed my mind. I feel like the cover bonus to reflex wouldn't be unwarranted, per say, but it's not called out as being a benefit you get. So I don't think it's actually RAW; I had thought incorrectly.
And now having looked through the rules, I'm really surprised there isn't an archetype or a feat that does it. Feels like something that should exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tower shields don't actually give the wielder Cover at all. They use a special case of Take Cover, which just affects the shield's AC bonus, as written. It doesn't become cover and does not help with stealth or saves.
The tower shield user does, however, become a source of standard cover for other creatures behind them, with the shield raised. That other creature could Hide behind the guy with the huge shield.
Example 1) A character is in a room with his back to the wall, surrounded by thugs. Player says, I am by a feature that can provide cover (tech he is right, it can provide cover to someone on the other side of the wall), so that allows him to take cover. And the take cover action states, if he doesn't have standard cover, then he gains it "Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead)".Question 1) As a dm, would you allow him to have the standard cover +2 bonus to ac verse the thugs because he was "hugging" the flat wall for cover?
He gets greater cover against anyone the wall would give him standard cover against, which is nobody in this scenario. Putting your back to a wall means only 5 enemies can be adjacent to you, and only 2 of them can flank you; that's it.
Some GMs may give you a cover bonus against enemies that were strictly along the line of the wall. I can't see them being any more generous than that.